Science Truth, and Religion

[Czernobog]

Now your just spewing gibberish.

No I am simply giving you the opportunity to you as you show with each of your own posts what sort of a hypocrite you are.

Well, you're failing miserably. Thanks for playing.

You are the one that fails to recognize or does not understand what a spirit is.

spir·it
ˈspirit/
noun
noun: spirit; plural noun: spirits

1. 1.
   the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
   "we seek a harmony between body and spirit"
   synonyms: soul, psyche, (inner) self, inner being, inner man/woman, mind, ego, id;
   pneuma
   "harmony between body and spirit"
   antonyms: body, flesh
   • the nonphysical part of a person regarded as a person's true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation.
     "a year after he left, his spirit is still present"
   • the nonphysical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost.
     synonyms: ghost, presence;
     informalspook
     "a spirit haunts the island"
   • a supernatural being.
     "shrines to nature spirits"
   • short for Holy Spirit.
     noun: Spirit; noun: the Spirit
   • archaic
     a highly refined substance or fluid thought to govern vital phenomena.
2. 2.
   those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period.
   "the university is a symbol of the nation's egalitarian spirit"
   synonyms: ethos, prevailing tendency, motivating force, essence, quintessence; More
   atmosphere, mood, feeling, climate;
   attitudes, beliefs, principles, standards, ethics
   "the spirit of the age"
   • a person identified with their most prominent mental or moral characteristics or with their role in a group or movement.
     "he was a leading spirit in the conference"
   • a specified emotion or mood, especially one prevailing at a particular time.
     "I hope the team will build on this spirit of confidence"
   • a person's mood.
     "the warm weather lifted everyone's spirits after the winter"
     synonyms: mood, frame of mind, state of mind, emotional state, humor, temper
     "she was in good spirits when I left"
   • the quality of courage, energy, and determination or assertiveness.
     "his visitors admired his spirit and good temper"
     synonyms: morale, esprit de corps More
     "team spirit"
     courage, bravery, pluck, valor, strength of character, fortitude, backbone, mettle, stoutheartedness, determination, resolution, resolve, fight, grit;
     informalguts, spunk, sand, moxie
     "his spirit never failed him"
     enthusiasm, eagerness, keenness, liveliness, vivacity, vivaciousness, animation, energy, verve, vigor, dynamism, zest, dash, elan, panache, sparkle, exuberance, gusto, brio, pep, fervor, zeal, fire, passion;
     informalget-up-and-go
     "they played with great spirit"
   • the attitude or intentions with which someone undertakes or regards something.
     "he confessed in a spirit of self-respect, not defiance"
     synonyms: attitude, frame of mind, way of thinking, point of view, outlook, thoughts, ideas
     "that's the spirit"
   • the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation.
     "the rule had been broken in spirit if not in letter"
     synonyms: real/true meaning, true intention, essence, substance
     "the spirit of the law"
3. 3.
   strong distilled liquor such as brandy, whiskey, gin, or rum.
   synonyms: strong liquor/drink; More
   informal hard stuff, firewater, hooch
   "he drinks spirits"
   • a volatile liquid, especially a fuel, prepared by distillation.
     "aviation spirit"
   • archaic
     a solution of volatile components extracted from something, typically by distillation or by solution in alcohol.
     "spirits of turpentine"

verb
verb: spirit; 3rd person present: spirits; past tense: spirited; past participle: spirited; gerund or present participle: spiriting

1. 1.
   convey rapidly and secretly.
   "stolen cows were spirited away some distance to prevent detection"

Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French, from Latin spiritus ‘breath, spirit,’ from spirare ‘breathe.’

And the only two of those that are real, are the last two.

Again you speak from the lack of your ability to perceive and yet you attempted to use the written word in your haste to attempt to disprove what you cannot perceive.

You keep talking about perception. You get that personal perception is the least reliable source for evidence. That is the whole reason for demanding objective evidence. Because objective evidence remains constant regardless of "perception". Gravity works, whether you see it working, or not. If you drop a ball off of a tower, and watch it, it falls to the ground. If you drop a ball off a tower, and turn your back, guess what it still does? That's right. Falls. To. The. Ground. If your "truth" requires some special "perception" to grasp it, then it is not true to anyone except you, and anyone else who chooses to look at the world through your altered view.

 

[Czernobog]

Ahhh...there it is...

This is statement 'YOU' make is because of your limitations, your mind cannot contain truth and the truth is way beyond your ability to comprehend when it is given to you. If you can't get to first base you will not be able to get to second or the third. You seem to think for some reason you have the ability to jump past that all and get to where home base is. A child can understand that can you?

Even a child would realize that he starts standing on home base; And effectively has to go nowhere, in order to get to where that place is.

Wow, that is pretty deep. Someone should tell that to Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg who did the seminal work on the morality progression where he scientifically identified six stages of morality progression. Five of which do not start on home base. Maybe we can ask Dr. Czernobog his opinion on Kohlberg's work. I'm sure he can do a quick google search and pretend to understand it.

You mean like the fact that Kohlberg only used white male subjects? Or the fact that Kohblerg's theory completely ignores the fact that one's perspective on moral values change when faced with a moral dilemma (choose between the death of a loved one, or the death of a baby). The fact is that Kohblerg's theories were abandoned ages ago, because they were simply not equipped to handle how people react in normal daily decisions. But, you know, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about...

See, this is what happens when a person with a minimum education who surfs the net, and thinks he knows a lot comes face to face with people who have actually spent their lives studying a subject.

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings, then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

 

[ding]

This is statement 'YOU' make is because of your limitations, your mind cannot contain truth and the truth is way beyond your ability to comprehend when it is given to you. If you can't get to first base you will not be able to get to second or the third. You seem to think for some reason you have the ability to jump past that all and get to where home base is. A child can understand that can you?

That's rich. You believe in magic and fairy tales, and you are going to talk to me like I'm the child?

I'm not calling you a child, but I do think you are bigoted and that is either due to a mental deficiency, or a infantile view of the world based on ignorance.

I'm bigoted because I prefer to live in a world of rationality, and reason, instead of myth, and baseless belief? Okay.

No. You are bigoted because you are biased. You are biased because you are subjective and not objective.

Oh. What? You decided to run away from Kohberg, when you were exposed for, again, not knowing what the fuck you were talking about? Go. Away. Child.

You are bigoted and biased on people of faith and I will guess on conservatives as well assuming you are what you claim to be which I still have my doubts.

 

[ding]

This is statement 'YOU' make is because of your limitations, your mind cannot contain truth and the truth is way beyond your ability to comprehend when it is given to you. If you can't get to first base you will not be able to get to second or the third. You seem to think for some reason you have the ability to jump past that all and get to where home base is. A child can understand that can you?

Even a child would realize that he starts standing on home base; And effectively has to go nowhere, in order to get to where that place is.

Wow, that is pretty deep. Someone should tell that to Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg who did the seminal work on the morality progression where he scientifically identified six stages of morality progression. Five of which do not start on home base. Maybe we can ask Dr. Czernobog his opinion on Kohlberg's work. I'm sure he can do a quick google search and pretend to understand it.

You mean like the fact that Kohlberg only used white male subjects? Or the fact that Kohblerg's theory completely ignores the fact that one's perspective on moral values change when faced with a moral dilemma (choose between the death of a loved one, or the death of a baby). The fact is that Kohblerg's theories were abandoned ages ago, because they were simply not equipped to handle how people react in normal daily decisions. But, you know, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about...

See, this is what happens when a person with a minimum education who surfs the net, and thinks he knows a lot comes face to face with people who have actually spent their lives studying a subject.

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

 

[Czernobog]

This is statement 'YOU' make is because of your limitations, your mind cannot contain truth and the truth is way beyond your ability to comprehend when it is given to you. If you can't get to first base you will not be able to get to second or the third. You seem to think for some reason you have the ability to jump past that all and get to where home base is. A child can understand that can you?

Even a child would realize that he starts standing on home base; And effectively has to go nowhere, in order to get to where that place is.

Wow, that is pretty deep. Someone should tell that to Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg who did the seminal work on the morality progression where he scientifically identified six stages of morality progression. Five of which do not start on home base. Maybe we can ask Dr. Czernobog his opinion on Kohlberg's work. I'm sure he can do a quick google search and pretend to understand it.

You mean like the fact that Kohlberg only used white male subjects? Or the fact that Kohblerg's theory completely ignores the fact that one's perspective on moral values change when faced with a moral dilemma (choose between the death of a loved one, or the death of a baby). The fact is that Kohblerg's theories were abandoned ages ago, because they were simply not equipped to handle how people react in normal daily decisions. But, you know, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about...

See, this is what happens when a person with a minimum education who surfs the net, and thinks he knows a lot comes face to face with people who have actually spent their lives studying a subject.

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

I'm sorry. Where did you get your PhD in psychology, again?

That's rich. You believe in magic and fairy tales, and you are going to talk to me like I'm the child?

I'm not calling you a child, but I do think you are bigoted and that is either due to a mental deficiency, or a infantile view of the world based on ignorance.

I'm bigoted because I prefer to live in a world of rationality, and reason, instead of myth, and baseless belief? Okay.

No. You are bigoted because you are biased. You are biased because you are subjective and not objective.

Oh. What? You decided to run away from Kohberg, when you were exposed for, again, not knowing what the fuck you were talking about? Go. Away. Child.

You are bigoted and biased on people of faith and I will guess on conservatives as well assuming you are what you claim to be which I still have my doubts.

Well, those certainly aren't words of love, and encouragement...

 

[RodISHI]

You keep talking about perception. You get that personal perception is the least reliable source for evidence. That is the whole reason for demanding objective evidence. Because objective evidence remains constant regardless of "perception". Gravity works, whether you see it working, or not. If you drop a ball off of a tower, and watch it, it falls to the ground. If you drop a ball off a tower, and turn your back, guess what it still does? That's right. Falls. To. The. Ground. If your "truth" requires some special "perception" to grasp it, then it is not true to anyone except you, and anyone else who chooses to look at the world through your altered view.

Pure energy/light/ and sound even (love) is not bound by gravity, time or space.

Denial merely creates a mental block for those who deny its existence.

 

[Czernobog]

Even a child would realize that he starts standing on home base; And effectively has to go nowhere, in order to get to where that place is.

Wow, that is pretty deep. Someone should tell that to Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg who did the seminal work on the morality progression where he scientifically identified six stages of morality progression. Five of which do not start on home base. Maybe we can ask Dr. Czernobog his opinion on Kohlberg's work. I'm sure he can do a quick google search and pretend to understand it.

You mean like the fact that Kohlberg only used white male subjects? Or the fact that Kohblerg's theory completely ignores the fact that one's perspective on moral values change when faced with a moral dilemma (choose between the death of a loved one, or the death of a baby). The fact is that Kohblerg's theories were abandoned ages ago, because they were simply not equipped to handle how people react in normal daily decisions. But, you know, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about...

See, this is what happens when a person with a minimum education who surfs the net, and thinks he knows a lot comes face to face with people who have actually spent their lives studying a subject.

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

 

[ding]

Wow, that is pretty deep. Someone should tell that to Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg who did the seminal work on the morality progression where he scientifically identified six stages of morality progression. Five of which do not start on home base. Maybe we can ask Dr. Czernobog his opinion on Kohlberg's work. I'm sure he can do a quick google search and pretend to understand it.

You mean like the fact that Kohlberg only used white male subjects? Or the fact that Kohblerg's theory completely ignores the fact that one's perspective on moral values change when faced with a moral dilemma (choose between the death of a loved one, or the death of a baby). The fact is that Kohblerg's theories were abandoned ages ago, because they were simply not equipped to handle how people react in normal daily decisions. But, you know, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about...

See, this is what happens when a person with a minimum education who surfs the net, and thinks he knows a lot comes face to face with people who have actually spent their lives studying a subject.

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

You claim to be the expert. You claim Kohlberg has been discredited. I am asking you, the expert, if you believe there is a morality progression as we age and whose work replaced Kohlberg's.

 

[Vastator]

Ahhh...there it is...

This is statement 'YOU' make is because of your limitations, your mind cannot contain truth and the truth is way beyond your ability to comprehend when it is given to you. If you can't get to first base you will not be able to get to second or the third. You seem to think for some reason you have the ability to jump past that all and get to where home base is. A child can understand that can you?

Even a child would realize that he starts standing on home base; And effectively has to go nowhere, in order to get to where that place is.

Wow, that is pretty deep. Someone should tell that to Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg who did the seminal work on the morality progression where he scientifically identified six stages of morality progression. Five of which do not start on home base. Maybe we can ask Dr. Czernobog his opinion on Kohlberg's work. I'm sure he can do a quick google search and pretend to understand it.

You mean like the fact that Kohlberg only used white male subjects? Or the fact that Kohblerg's theory completely ignores the fact that one's perspective on moral values change when faced with a moral dilemma (choose between the death of a loved one, or the death of a baby). The fact is that Kohblerg's theories were abandoned ages ago, because they were simply not equipped to handle how people react in normal daily decisions. But, you know, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about...

See, this is what happens when a person with a minimum education who surfs the net, and thinks he knows a lot comes face to face with people who have actually spent their lives studying a subject.

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

You can assume whatever you like. And "no", that isn't what I'm saying.
But this is as good a time as any to point out your sociopathic nature.
You're now trying to take control of the conversation, after losing ground on your previous position. Now you are attempting to force the conversation back into what you feel is a safe place where you can "wow" people with your somewhat pre rehearsed response to the silly little premise you just tried to establish with your last supposition and question. Next; (but for the fact that I've mentioned it ) comes the "challenge question to which you don't actually want an answer to, followed by another question worded with "authority" on the matter you'd like to discuss next...
News flash kid. Insecure crack pots like you are a dime a dozen, and your MO though habitually instinctive; is far from novel or original. Rather it is cyclical,and predictable...

 

[Czernobog]

You mean like the fact that Kohlberg only used white male subjects? Or the fact that Kohblerg's theory completely ignores the fact that one's perspective on moral values change when faced with a moral dilemma (choose between the death of a loved one, or the death of a baby). The fact is that Kohblerg's theories were abandoned ages ago, because they were simply not equipped to handle how people react in normal daily decisions. But, you know, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about...

See, this is what happens when a person with a minimum education who surfs the net, and thinks he knows a lot comes face to face with people who have actually spent their lives studying a subject.

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

You claim to be the expert. You claim Kohlberg has been discredited. I am asking you, the expert, if you believe there is a morality progression as we age and whose work replaced Kohlbergs.

Of course you are. Because, you can't answer the question, after presenting yourself as an expert. You know why you can't answer my questions? Because that isn't something you can just look up online, and pretend that you know what you're talking about. You are dismissed.

 

[ding]

Wow, that is pretty deep. Someone should tell that to Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg who did the seminal work on the morality progression where he scientifically identified six stages of morality progression. Five of which do not start on home base. Maybe we can ask Dr. Czernobog his opinion on Kohlberg's work. I'm sure he can do a quick google search and pretend to understand it.

You mean like the fact that Kohlberg only used white male subjects? Or the fact that Kohblerg's theory completely ignores the fact that one's perspective on moral values change when faced with a moral dilemma (choose between the death of a loved one, or the death of a baby). The fact is that Kohblerg's theories were abandoned ages ago, because they were simply not equipped to handle how people react in normal daily decisions. But, you know, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about...

See, this is what happens when a person with a minimum education who surfs the net, and thinks he knows a lot comes face to face with people who have actually spent their lives studying a subject.

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

Kohlberhg identified six stages of morality progression. He found that you had to go through the stages sequentially. That you could not skip steps. The early stages were because you were told to do so. The middle stages were because you got something out of it. The 5th stage was because you genuinely like the people and the six and final stage is that you followed the dictates of your conscience regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to yourself. I am doing this from memory. I read it 10 years ago.

Now will you answer my questions Mr. Expert?

Do you believe that there is a morality progression?

Whose work replaced Kohlberg's work?

 

[ding]

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

You claim to be the expert. You claim Kohlberg has been discredited. I am asking you, the expert, if you believe there is a morality progression as we age and whose work replaced Kohlbergs.

Of course you are. Because, you can't answer the question, after presenting yourself as an expert. You know why you can't answer my questions? Because that isn't something you can just look up online, and pretend that you know what you're talking about. You are dismissed.

I did not present myself as an expert. You did. Can you answer the questions Mr. Expert? Or are you lying?

 

[Czernobog]

You mean like the fact that Kohlberg only used white male subjects? Or the fact that Kohblerg's theory completely ignores the fact that one's perspective on moral values change when faced with a moral dilemma (choose between the death of a loved one, or the death of a baby). The fact is that Kohblerg's theories were abandoned ages ago, because they were simply not equipped to handle how people react in normal daily decisions. But, you know, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about...

See, this is what happens when a person with a minimum education who surfs the net, and thinks he knows a lot comes face to face with people who have actually spent their lives studying a subject.

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

Kohlberhg identified six stages of morality progression. He found that you had to go through the stages sequentially. That you could not skip steps. The early stages were because you were told to do so. The middle stages were because you got something out of it. The 5th stage was because you genuinely like the people and the six and final stage is that you followed the dictates of your conscience regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to yourself. I am doing this from memory. I read it 10 years ago.

Now will you answer my questions Mr. Expert?

Do you believe that there is a morality progression?

Whose work replaced Kohlberg's work?

You didn't answer my question. Yes. he identified six stages of moral progression. How? What study did he employ to identify those six stages? Who were his study subjects? how did he choose them, and why, in your opinion, were they an appropriate sampling pool?

These are the exact same questions I have been asking you, that you keep refusing to answer. Why do you keep refusing to answer them? Because you can't just look the answers to these questions up online, and pretend to be an expert. You. Are. Dismissed.

 

[Czernobog]

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

You claim to be the expert. You claim Kohlberg has been discredited. I am asking you, the expert, if you believe there is a morality progression as we age and whose work replaced Kohlbergs.

Of course you are. Because, you can't answer the question, after presenting yourself as an expert. You know why you can't answer my questions? Because that isn't something you can just look up online, and pretend that you know what you're talking about. You are dismissed.

I did not present myself as an expert. You did. Can you answer the questions Mr. Expert? Or are you lying?

Oh, but you did. You brought up Kohlberg, spewing your knowledge of his "seminal work", and then made some snide remark about me having to "google" him, implying that you were the expert on Kohlberg, while I was just some pretender. Begone, troll.

 

[Vastator]

So... predictable... Yet they never think anyone else can see it... The emporers new clothes I suppose...

 

[ding]

I see that you are practicing your critical theory again. Let's test this, shall we? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age? Do you believe that makes sense? Is that what you have personally observed?

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

Kohlberhg identified six stages of morality progression. He found that you had to go through the stages sequentially. That you could not skip steps. The early stages were because you were told to do so. The middle stages were because you got something out of it. The 5th stage was because you genuinely like the people and the six and final stage is that you followed the dictates of your conscience regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to yourself. I am doing this from memory. I read it 10 years ago.

Now will you answer my questions Mr. Expert?

Do you believe that there is a morality progression?

Whose work replaced Kohlberg's work?

You didn't answer my question. Yes. he identified six stages of moral progression. How? What study did he employ to identify those six stages? Who were his study subjects? how did he choose them, and why, in your opinion, were they an appropriate sampling pool?

These are the exact same questions I have been asking you, that you keep refusing to answer. Why do you keep refusing to answer them? Because you can't just look the answers to these questions up online, and pretend to be an expert. You. Are. Dismissed.

I don't care how he did the study. You say it has been refuted. I am asking you whose work replaced it and if you believe there is a morality progression? I think you are lying and full of shit.

 

[ding]

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

You claim to be the expert. You claim Kohlberg has been discredited. I am asking you, the expert, if you believe there is a morality progression as we age and whose work replaced Kohlbergs.

Of course you are. Because, you can't answer the question, after presenting yourself as an expert. You know why you can't answer my questions? Because that isn't something you can just look up online, and pretend that you know what you're talking about. You are dismissed.

I did not present myself as an expert. You did. Can you answer the questions Mr. Expert? Or are you lying?

Oh, but you did. You brought up Kohlberg, spewing your knowledge of his "seminal work", and then made some snide remark about me having to "google" him, implying that you were the expert on Kohlberg, while I was just some pretender. Begone, troll.

You can't answer the questions because you are a fake.

 

[ding]

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

You claim to be the expert. You claim Kohlberg has been discredited. I am asking you, the expert, if you believe there is a morality progression as we age and whose work replaced Kohlbergs.

Of course you are. Because, you can't answer the question, after presenting yourself as an expert. You know why you can't answer my questions? Because that isn't something you can just look up online, and pretend that you know what you're talking about. You are dismissed.

I did not present myself as an expert. You did. Can you answer the questions Mr. Expert? Or are you lying?

Oh, but you did. You brought up Kohlberg, spewing your knowledge of his "seminal work", and then made some snide remark about me having to "google" him, implying that you were the expert on Kohlberg, while I was just some pretender. Begone, troll.

Do you believe there is a morality progression?

 

[ding]

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

You claim to be the expert. You claim Kohlberg has been discredited. I am asking you, the expert, if you believe there is a morality progression as we age and whose work replaced Kohlbergs.

Of course you are. Because, you can't answer the question, after presenting yourself as an expert. You know why you can't answer my questions? Because that isn't something you can just look up online, and pretend that you know what you're talking about. You are dismissed.

I did not present myself as an expert. You did. Can you answer the questions Mr. Expert? Or are you lying?

Oh, but you did. You brought up Kohlberg, spewing your knowledge of his "seminal work", and then made some snide remark about me having to "google" him, implying that you were the expert on Kohlberg, while I was just some pretender. Begone, troll.

Whose work replaced Kohlberg's work?

 

[ding]

So... predictable... Yet they never think anyone else can see it... The emporers new clothes I suppose...

Yes, it is predictable. You guys are low paid workers who need to pretend to be more than you are. You are both naked and exposed.