if not evolution

[G.T.]

No, I didnt say that.

I said that you cannot prove that its universally immoral.

You then failed to logically prove as much, and flailed over what you incorrectly gathered as my views on the topic..in attempts to do so.

For some reason.

So then you agree with me that slavery has always been immoral?

Not universally ~ no...but in my mere opinion, yes.

We aren't talking about your opinion or my opinion, GT. We are talking about a standard. The highest standard.

then why are you asking leading questions about my opinion to make your case that the standard is universal?

oh...cuz you dont know how to make a case


/derp

It is called using the Socratic method and it is used to show how foolish the other person is.

It is working like a charm. People who practice critical theory like yourself have no defense against it other than looking foolish. Thank you for being so accommodating.

It shows that you are unable to form a cogent, logical argument.

You stepped in it by admitting that my personal opinion has zilch to do with proving a Universal standard.

If dingbat on the internet could prove a Universal standard, he'd do it.

Unfortunately, youve proven you cannot, thus confirming my original, correct analysis that its useless to have philosophical discussions with folks who dont even know how to reason, to begin with.

 

[ding]

So then you agree with me that slavery has always been immoral?

Not universally ~ no...but in my mere opinion, yes.

We aren't talking about your opinion or my opinion, GT. We are talking about a standard. The highest standard.

then why are you asking leading questions about my opinion to make your case that the standard is universal?

oh...cuz you dont know how to make a case


/derp

It is called using the Socratic method and it is used to show how foolish the other person is.

It is working like a charm. People who practice critical theory like yourself have no defense against it other than looking foolish. Thank you for being so accommodating.

It shows that you are unable to form a cogent, logical argument.

You stepped in it by admitting that my personal opinion has zilch to do with proving a Universal standard.

If dingbat on the internet could prove a Universal standard, he'd do it.

Unfortunately, youve proven you cannot, thus confirming my original, correct analysis that its useless to have philosophical discussions with folks who dont even know how to reason, to begin with.

Virtue is a universal standard, GT. You just don't have any, so you argue against it.

 

[G.T.]

Not universally ~ no...but in my mere opinion, yes.

We aren't talking about your opinion or my opinion, GT. We are talking about a standard. The highest standard.

then why are you asking leading questions about my opinion to make your case that the standard is universal?

oh...cuz you dont know how to make a case


/derp

It is called using the Socratic method and it is used to show how foolish the other person is.

It is working like a charm. People who practice critical theory like yourself have no defense against it other than looking foolish. Thank you for being so accommodating.

It shows that you are unable to form a cogent, logical argument.

You stepped in it by admitting that my personal opinion has zilch to do with proving a Universal standard.

If dingbat on the internet could prove a Universal standard, he'd do it.

Unfortunately, youve proven you cannot, thus confirming my original, correct analysis that its useless to have philosophical discussions with folks who dont even know how to reason, to begin with.

Virtue is a universal standard, GT. You just don't have any, so you argue against it.

You cannot support it, and for some reason you blame shift.

Im asking for a reasonable proof of things, and all you do is neener like a little bitch and then invoke malformed questions in place of a cogent argument....ones that dont make your case, and couldnt, and you dont know why.

Its ok, your number has been pegged by tons of folks....youre the idiot that fancies himself smawwt. Whoops

 

[ding]

See? I told you he'd argue against virtue.

Works every time.

boom shakalaka!!!!

 

[G.T.]

See? I told you he'd argue against virtue.

Works every time.

Argue for it...

I'll wait.


And, once again, you have a mighty hard time with conflation and comprehension.

Perhaps someone can explain how. I'll let you simmer in it.

 

[ding]

Reasonable proof like people who behave virtuously will always have a better relationship than people who behave without virtue?

Yes, history is full of examples of societies that behave with virtue being peaceful and harmonious.

In fact, I think even our Founding Fathers acknowledged the necessity of virtue for liberty and freedom.

 

[G.T.]

Reasonable proof like people who behave virtuously will always have a better relationship than people who behave without virtue?

Yes, history is full of examples of societies that behave with virtue being peaceful and harmonious.

In fact, I think even our Founding Fathers acknowledged the necessity of virtue for liberty and freedom.

Im not asking you for the human account of anything, because (small brain) I believe that humans practice a standard of behaviour and so..to prove that virtue is "universal," citing humans falls short of making the case.

Im not sure why that's so difficult to understand. Youre a brick.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Wow the Democrat Bigots just relentlessly attack Christians

 

[G.T.]

Wow the Democrat Bigots just relentlessly attack Christians

I think that Islam is the most regressive, of the popular religions

 

[ding]

Reasonable proof like people who behave virtuously will always have a better relationship than people who behave without virtue?

Yes, history is full of examples of societies that behave with virtue being peaceful and harmonious.

In fact, I think even our Founding Fathers acknowledged the necessity of virtue for liberty and freedom.

Im not asking you for the human account of anything, because (small brain) I believe that humans practice a standard of behaviour and so..to prove that virtue is "universal," citing humans falls short of making the case.

Im not sure why that's so difficult to understand. Youre a brick.

You need a scientific paper to tell you that it is a universal truth that two kind people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people?

 

[ding]

Wow the Democrat Bigots just relentlessly attack Christians

Did you just self identify with being a Democratic bigot?

 

[G.T.]

Reasonable proof like people who behave virtuously will always have a better relationship than people who behave without virtue?

Yes, history is full of examples of societies that behave with virtue being peaceful and harmonious.

In fact, I think even our Founding Fathers acknowledged the necessity of virtue for liberty and freedom.

Im not asking you for the human account of anything, because (small brain) I believe that humans practice a standard of behaviour and so..to prove that virtue is "universal," citing humans falls short of making the case.

Im not sure why that's so difficult to understand. Youre a brick.

You need a scientific paper to tell you that it is a universal truth that two kind people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people?

There goes the point, sailing over your head again.

No~ I'd need a scientific paper establishing that the values humans hold in society are universal to: intelligent aliens, other dimensional beings, etc.

i.e. what the word 'universal' literally means, which isnt "subjective to the human experience."

 

[ding]

Reasonable proof like people who behave virtuously will always have a better relationship than people who behave without virtue?

Yes, history is full of examples of societies that behave with virtue being peaceful and harmonious.

In fact, I think even our Founding Fathers acknowledged the necessity of virtue for liberty and freedom.

Im not asking you for the human account of anything, because (small brain) I believe that humans practice a standard of behaviour and so..to prove that virtue is "universal," citing humans falls short of making the case.

Im not sure why that's so difficult to understand. Youre a brick.

You need a scientific paper to tell you that it is a universal truth that two kind people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people?

There goes the point, sailing over your head again.

No~ I'd need a scientific paper establishing that the values humans hold in society are universal to: intelligent aliens, other dimensional beings, etc.

i.e. what the word 'universal' literally means, which isnt "subjective to the human experience."

So you don't know what virtuous behaviors are?

 

[ding]

The Greek philosophers knew what virtue is.

America's Founding Fathers knew what virtue is.

But GT does not know what virtue is.

 

[G.T.]

Reasonable proof like people who behave virtuously will always have a better relationship than people who behave without virtue?

Yes, history is full of examples of societies that behave with virtue being peaceful and harmonious.

In fact, I think even our Founding Fathers acknowledged the necessity of virtue for liberty and freedom.

Im not asking you for the human account of anything, because (small brain) I believe that humans practice a standard of behaviour and so..to prove that virtue is "universal," citing humans falls short of making the case.

Im not sure why that's so difficult to understand. Youre a brick.

You need a scientific paper to tell you that it is a universal truth that two kind people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people?

There goes the point, sailing over your head again.

No~ I'd need a scientific paper establishing that the values humans hold in society are universal to: intelligent aliens, other dimensional beings, etc.

i.e. what the word 'universal' literally means, which isnt "subjective to the human experience."

So you don't know what virtuous behaviors are?

I understand that humans, through community and reasoning, follow certain virtues as a result of said experience.

This, of course, doesnt speak to a logical proof that virtues are universal.

Take your time absorbing that.

 

[G.T.]

The Greek philosophers knew what virtue is.

America's Founding Fathers knew what virtue is.

But GT does not know what virtue is.

Incorrect. Want to try that again?

 

[harmonica]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness

"please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little"

Why don't YOU explain it to us? Go on, you brought it up. Explain it for us.

it's simple--I've explained it already if you have been reading and can understand the posts---it's in my other post!
it's right there!!!--in your reply...you must have missed reading it or don't understand

there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc

 

[ding]

Reasonable proof like people who behave virtuously will always have a better relationship than people who behave without virtue?

Yes, history is full of examples of societies that behave with virtue being peaceful and harmonious.

In fact, I think even our Founding Fathers acknowledged the necessity of virtue for liberty and freedom.

Im not asking you for the human account of anything, because (small brain) I believe that humans practice a standard of behaviour and so..to prove that virtue is "universal," citing humans falls short of making the case.

Im not sure why that's so difficult to understand. Youre a brick.

You need a scientific paper to tell you that it is a universal truth that two kind people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people?

There goes the point, sailing over your head again.

No~ I'd need a scientific paper establishing that the values humans hold in society are universal to: intelligent aliens, other dimensional beings, etc.

i.e. what the word 'universal' literally means, which isnt "subjective to the human experience."

So you don't know what virtuous behaviors are?

I understand that humans, through community and reasoning, follow certain virtues as a result of said experience.

This, of course, doesnt speak to a logical proof that virtues are universal.

Take your time absorbing that.

So you don't think compassion is universally understood? Do you think cruelty is universally understood?

If you were the recipient of both, do you think you could tell the difference between the two?

 

[ding]

The Greek philosophers knew what virtue is.

America's Founding Fathers knew what virtue is.

But GT does not know what virtue is.

Incorrect. Want to try that again?

It is absolutely correct until you acknowledge that you agree with what Socrates and the Founding Fathers knew.

 

[G.T.]

Im not asking you for the human account of anything, because (small brain) I believe that humans practice a standard of behaviour and so..to prove that virtue is "universal," citing humans falls short of making the case.

Im not sure why that's so difficult to understand. Youre a brick.

You need a scientific paper to tell you that it is a universal truth that two kind people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people?

There goes the point, sailing over your head again.

No~ I'd need a scientific paper establishing that the values humans hold in society are universal to: intelligent aliens, other dimensional beings, etc.

i.e. what the word 'universal' literally means, which isnt "subjective to the human experience."

So you don't know what virtuous behaviors are?

I understand that humans, through community and reasoning, follow certain virtues as a result of said experience.

This, of course, doesnt speak to a logical proof that virtues are universal.

Take your time absorbing that.

So you don't think compassion is universally understood? Do you think cruelty is universally understood?

If you were the recipient of both, do you think you could tell the difference between the two?

Understood universally by ->?

If we are talking subjective to human knowledge and experience, sure.....but you're reaching... to call things "universal," with your limited human experience. Its ok, hubris....but you dont know every living creature ever in the whole entire universe, ever.