Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I don't challenge your assertions, although I think they are sometimes wrong. I do challenge your intellectual consistency, which if virtually non-existent. To borrow a popular phrase, "You want your cake and to eat it too." From my observation, you seem to be making two rationally inconsistent arguments. The first seems to be that you are an unapologetic hedonist, and that, by virtue of your physical existence, you have the right to indulge yourself in any way you see fit without being bothered by matters of conscience or decorum. This is fine, but making this kind of argument belies your other argument for moral stances on such things as fair treatment for gays and the like. What is it? Are you a hedonist arguing for the conventionality, and therefore, artificial nature, of all morality, or do you believe that a morality exists above social convention that we can know and point to at all times? Morality is either real or it isn't. If it's not real, than why should I be nice to anyone I don't like? What does it matter? Shouldn't I just indulge myself and all my whims, no matter what the consequence for others?
1) To think my assertions are wrong, ARE to challenge them.
2) Just because Morality is subjective or human-created doesn't mean it's not real. I already stated that.
You keep using the term "Hedonistic" as if all I care about is pleasure. Wow...you got me all figured out ! 🙄
Whether morality is real or not..doesn't matter. It is as real as we beleive it to be...that is all that counts. I am simply challenging your morality, although you and I do not have THAT different a sense of morality.
However, our moralities DO NOT represent ANY majority....and if you think that I am the only person who thinks the way I do, then ur AGAIN fkn deluded...more deluded than when you claim you know the Nature of our Universe.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I will accept your position on either one of the other of these two stances, but not both at the same time. This is intellectually inconsistent. If you argue both, you must somehow explain how you do so without violating basic logic.
Argue what ? What is inconsistent ?
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
My foundation is as follows:
1. Personal experience.
2. My modest knowledge of the thousands year old tradition of liberal learning in the Western world, of which, the Bible is a large, influential part.
3. My relationships with other people.
4. Rational inference.
5. Intuition.What is yours?
If you say, my own personal, uncorroborated feelings and the popular, current wisdom of the day, I'm gonna piss in my pants laughing...
Foundation for what? I never claimed to know the nature of this Universe.....
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Lord U, here you go again with this "proof" nonsense. There is no empirical proof for any of the things we're talking about. I thought we had already established this. Your problem is that you are not consistent with your arguments and simultaneously assert mutually contradictory premises.
No, we established this just now. The point is you have no proof..so you cannot claim your assertions as Fact. To do so is to bullshit everybody on this forum...though bullshit seems to be your speciality 🙂
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
This is not true. Most cultures agree on virtually all points of common morality. Murder, stealing, lying, being disrespectful...these are condemned in virtually every culture at every time. There will of course be differences in how these things are exactly defined, but almost everyone agrees in principle...except maybe Lord U.
In Africa, it is acceptable among tribes to cut off the clitoris of a woman before she weds a man.
In India, it is not only acceptable, but encouraged, for a woman to be killed after she is raped. Her brother, father, or mother would initiate her death, and then erase all foundations of her memory.
In China it is acceptable to kill and torture any religious citizens, or citizens who practice anything the government disapproves of.
In Cuba it is acceptable to imprison and oppress people for being homosexual.
In many parts of the Arab/Muslim world, it is glorified to be a suicidal bomber and kill many innocent women and children.
In United States its over all acceptable for a woman to kill her foetus for her own convienence. It was just acceptable a couple of years back for a woman to have an abortion, even in her third trimester.
To some people, which we in U.S.A. label "sociapaths" there is nothing wrong with raping, torturing, murdering, or controlling another human being or animal.
Oh and speaking of animals, in Spain, and so many other parts of the world it is acceptable to torture animals for traditional ceremonies.
In many parts of Europe and Asia it is okay to hunt innocent animals for sport.
Your f*cking DELUDED if you think this world shares a common morality....
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Like what?
Human nature ? Mother Nature ? A diety from another religion? Psychological reasons? Human mental evolution ?
Who knows....no one does...that's the point. There's infinite possibilities, many of which none of us could even imagine. ✅