Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[Blues Man]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

 

[ding]

There are no moral absolutes.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

In any event, that's not your position at all! Your position is that no moral absolutes exist except the moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist. Hence, the moral absolute that no moral absolutes exist is absolutely false. You're still trying to rationalize an absurdity, i.e., an inherently contradictory, self-negating assertion which proves the opposite is necessarily true.

We've gone over this before. Why do you repeat a falsified argument?

Let's take killing.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.

crickets chirping

It seems we as a society can't even agree on that.

Really?

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?

Saying there are no moral absolutes isn't a moral absolute in itself .

Morals exist I never said they didn't I just said morals are a human concept and arose from the human mind not from some other source.


And maybe you should quote my entire post and not cherry pick bits and pieces of it so you can address the examples in context as they relate to the subject

If society said it was moral to have sex with children, would you believe it was moral to do so?

 

[Blues Man]

no you didn't all you did was say they were discovered,

Which proves they exist apart from man. Are you stupid?

And when humans no longer exist our ideas of logic, math , music or whatever will only endure for as long as the records of those things we have made endure.

The concepts would continue ti exist because they exist independent of man. Now you are just going around in circles because you are upset.

We are impermanent our thoughts are impermanent.

I'm sure you believe that is true but you are wrong. Is this what we are going to keep doing.

You don't seem to realize that what we call music might not be music to another form of life that evolved differently from us. So there is no universal code for music floating around in the ether.

What you call it doesn't matter. All music is waiting to be discovered.

What we call morals are not universal they are human because they were conceived by the human mind and apply only to humans.

Sure they are. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

The universe has been in existence for so long compared to us mere humans that we don't even make a mark on the timeline. To quote a song "We are but dust in the wind"

The universe is an intelligence producing machine. Why else do you think it was created?

you do realize that just because you say something does not mean it is true don't you?

Where is your proof that these things existed before the human mind?

And the universe is what it is it doesn't have to have a purpose that once again is you projecting your desires on the universe

 

[ding]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

Your response tells me that you believe I was wrong, right? That I wronged you?

I did it to prove that point, dummy.

 

[ding]

no you didn't all you did was say they were discovered,

Which proves they exist apart from man. Are you stupid?

And when humans no longer exist our ideas of logic, math , music or whatever will only endure for as long as the records of those things we have made endure.

The concepts would continue ti exist because they exist independent of man. Now you are just going around in circles because you are upset.

We are impermanent our thoughts are impermanent.

I'm sure you believe that is true but you are wrong. Is this what we are going to keep doing.

You don't seem to realize that what we call music might not be music to another form of life that evolved differently from us. So there is no universal code for music floating around in the ether.

What you call it doesn't matter. All music is waiting to be discovered.

What we call morals are not universal they are human because they were conceived by the human mind and apply only to humans.

Sure they are. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

The universe has been in existence for so long compared to us mere humans that we don't even make a mark on the timeline. To quote a song "We are but dust in the wind"

The universe is an intelligence producing machine. Why else do you think it was created?

you do realize that just because you say something does not mean it is true don't you?

Where is your proof that these things existed before the human mind?

And the universe is what it is it doesn't have to have a purpose that once again is you projecting your desires on the universe

I already explained it. Tell me what I told you... three times. Or you could just read the post you literally just responded to. Dummy.

You see I don't think it is wrong to call you dummy. And since you don't believe morals are absolute, you can't believe it is wrong to call you dummy either.

 

[Blues Man]

There are no moral absolutes.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

In any event, that's not your position at all! Your position is that no moral absolutes exist except the moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist. Hence, the moral absolute that no moral absolutes exist is absolutely false. You're still trying to rationalize an absurdity, i.e., an inherently contradictory, self-negating assertion which proves the opposite is necessarily true.

We've gone over this before. Why do you repeat a falsified argument?

Let's take killing.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.

crickets chirping

It seems we as a society can't even agree on that.

Really?

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?

Saying there are no moral absolutes isn't a moral absolute in itself .

Morals exist I never said they didn't I just said morals are a human concept and arose from the human mind not from some other source.


And maybe you should quote my entire post and not cherry pick bits and pieces of it so you can address the examples in context as they relate to the subject

If society said it was moral to have sex with children, would you believe it was moral to do so?

From my perspective being taught that sex with children in unacceptable no.

If I was raised in a society that didn't have a taboo regarding sex with children my answer would be different.

You cannot separate the person from his society when it comes to moral value judgements.

If you were raised in a warrior culture where honor in battle was the highest goal and you were expected to fight to the death to settle arguments would you think killing a person was wrong?

No you probably wouldn't

But you can't know what it would have been like to be raised in that type of society can you?

 

[ding]

Blues Man would you have owned slaves 180 years ago?

Or would you have been one of those people who knew it was wrong 180 years ago?

 

[ding]

There are no moral absolutes.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

In any event, that's not your position at all! Your position is that no moral absolutes exist except the moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist. Hence, the moral absolute that no moral absolutes exist is absolutely false. You're still trying to rationalize an absurdity, i.e., an inherently contradictory, self-negating assertion which proves the opposite is necessarily true.

We've gone over this before. Why do you repeat a falsified argument?

Let's take killing.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.

crickets chirping

It seems we as a society can't even agree on that.

Really?

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?

Saying there are no moral absolutes isn't a moral absolute in itself .

Morals exist I never said they didn't I just said morals are a human concept and arose from the human mind not from some other source.


And maybe you should quote my entire post and not cherry pick bits and pieces of it so you can address the examples in context as they relate to the subject

If society said it was moral to have sex with children, would you believe it was moral to do so?

From my perspective being taught that sex with children in unacceptable no.

If I was raised in a society that didn't have a taboo regarding sex with children my answer would be different.

You cannot separate the person from his society when it comes to moral value judgements.

If you were raised in a warrior culture where honor in battle was the highest goal and you were expected to fight to the death to settle arguments would you think killing a person was wrong?

No you probably wouldn't

But you can't know what it would have been like to be raised in that type of society can you?

Let's pretend you are in one of those societies. Is it wrong to have sex with little children?

 

[ding]

There are no moral absolutes.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

In any event, that's not your position at all! Your position is that no moral absolutes exist except the moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist. Hence, the moral absolute that no moral absolutes exist is absolutely false. You're still trying to rationalize an absurdity, i.e., an inherently contradictory, self-negating assertion which proves the opposite is necessarily true.

We've gone over this before. Why do you repeat a falsified argument?

Let's take killing.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.

crickets chirping

It seems we as a society can't even agree on that.

Really?

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?

Saying there are no moral absolutes isn't a moral absolute in itself .

Morals exist I never said they didn't I just said morals are a human concept and arose from the human mind not from some other source.


And maybe you should quote my entire post and not cherry pick bits and pieces of it so you can address the examples in context as they relate to the subject

If society said it was moral to have sex with children, would you believe it was moral to do so?

From my perspective being taught that sex with children in unacceptable no.

If I was raised in a society that didn't have a taboo regarding sex with children my answer would be different.

You cannot separate the person from his society when it comes to moral value judgements.

If you were raised in a warrior culture where honor in battle was the highest goal and you were expected to fight to the death to settle arguments would you think killing a person was wrong?

No you probably wouldn't

But you can't know what it would have been like to be raised in that type of society can you?

I know that just because a society believes wrong is right that not everyone in that society believed it. That my friend is the proof you are looking for.

 

[Blues Man]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

Your response tells me that you believe I was wrong, right? That I wronged you?

I did it to prove that point, dummy.

You cannot wrong me as you are an anonymous poster on an internet board.

But since you cannot continue without the childish name calling and you cannot follow the tenets of logic that have been established for argument I have my proof that logic is not universal

 

[ding]

Slavery existed in 1820 and there were people who opposed it because they knew it was wrong.

 

[ding]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

Your response tells me that you believe I was wrong, right? That I wronged you?

I did it to prove that point, dummy.

You cannot wrong me as you are an anonymous poster on an internet board.

But since you cannot continue without the childish name calling and you cannot follow the tenets of logic that have been established for argument I have my proof that logic is not universal

I'm just waiting for you to admit you would have sex with children if society told you it was OK.

Personally I think that is fucked up and don't care what society says. Logic says it is wrong.

Case in point, I believe abortion is wrong and don't care what society thinks.

 

[ding]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

Your response tells me that you believe I was wrong, right? That I wronged you?

I did it to prove that point, dummy.

You cannot wrong me as you are an anonymous poster on an internet board.

But since you cannot continue without the childish name calling and you cannot follow the tenets of logic that have been established for argument I have my proof that logic is not universal

According to you there is no such thing as wrong, so I am assuming you have never been wronged.

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man would you have owned slaves 180 years ago?

Or would you have been one of those people who knew it was wrong 180 years ago?

That is an unanswerable question.

And human slavery existed for millennia before people started to believe it was wrong. As societies evolved and advanced that is one of the beliefs that changed over time

 

[ding]

Blues Man would you have owned slaves 180 years ago?

Or would you have been one of those people who knew it was wrong 180 years ago?

That is an unanswerable question.

And human slavery existed for millennia before people started to believe it was wrong. As societies evolved and advanced that is one of the beliefs that changed over time

You are confusing indentured servitude with forced slavery, dummy.

I suspect all throughout history there were people who knew forced slavery was wrong. Certainly the slaves did.

You won't answer the question because you are dishonest.

 

[ding]

Blues Man would you have owned slaves 180 years ago?

Or would you have been one of those people who knew it was wrong 180 years ago?

That is an unanswerable question.

And human slavery existed for millennia before people started to believe it was wrong. As societies evolved and advanced that is one of the beliefs that changed over time

If slavery were legal today would you own a slave if you could?

 

[Blues Man]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

Your response tells me that you believe I was wrong, right? That I wronged you?

I did it to prove that point, dummy.

You cannot wrong me as you are an anonymous poster on an internet board.

But since you cannot continue without the childish name calling and you cannot follow the tenets of logic that have been established for argument I have my proof that logic is not universal

I'm just waiting for you to admit you would have sex with children if society told you it was OK.

Personally I think that is fucked up and don't care what society says. Logic says it is wrong.

Case in point, I believe abortion is wrong and don't care what society thinks.

And I won't do that.

But you can't seem to comprehend that you cannot divorce yourself from the influence of the society you were raised in. Those beliefs have been ingrained in you since birth and reinforced your entire life by your interaction with countless people.

We are more the children of society than we are of our parents.

 

[ding]

Blues Man would you have owned slaves 180 years ago?

Or would you have been one of those people who knew it was wrong 180 years ago?

That is an unanswerable question.

And human slavery existed for millennia before people started to believe it was wrong. As societies evolved and advanced that is one of the beliefs that changed over time

It's not unanswerable. People opposed slavery when slavery was accepted by society.

 

[ding]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

Your response tells me that you believe I was wrong, right? That I wronged you?

I did it to prove that point, dummy.

You cannot wrong me as you are an anonymous poster on an internet board.

But since you cannot continue without the childish name calling and you cannot follow the tenets of logic that have been established for argument I have my proof that logic is not universal

I'm just waiting for you to admit you would have sex with children if society told you it was OK.

Personally I think that is fucked up and don't care what society says. Logic says it is wrong.

Case in point, I believe abortion is wrong and don't care what society thinks.

And I won't do that.

But you can't seem to comprehend that you cannot divorce yourself from the influence of the society you were raised in. Those beliefs have been ingrained in you since birth and reinforced your entire life by your interaction with countless people.

We are more the children of society than we are of our parents.

Why won't you do it?

 

[ding]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

Your response tells me that you believe I was wrong, right? That I wronged you?

I did it to prove that point, dummy.

You cannot wrong me as you are an anonymous poster on an internet board.

But since you cannot continue without the childish name calling and you cannot follow the tenets of logic that have been established for argument I have my proof that logic is not universal

I'm just waiting for you to admit you would have sex with children if society told you it was OK.

Personally I think that is fucked up and don't care what society says. Logic says it is wrong.

Case in point, I believe abortion is wrong and don't care what society thinks.

And I won't do that.

But you can't seem to comprehend that you cannot divorce yourself from the influence of the society you were raised in. Those beliefs have been ingrained in you since birth and reinforced your entire life by your interaction with countless people.

We are more the children of society than we are of our parents.

And you can't seem to comprehend that you cannot divorce logic from establishing absolute morals.