Page 5 of 5
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:26 am
by Kenny
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:25 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:38 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:14 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:38 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:35 am
Sure, answer my question first.
The Germans at that time felt they were the superior race, so of course they would consider it wrong to steal from the superior race, it's only okay when you take from those who are inferior
Same thing with Slavery; slaves were considered to be 3/5 human so it was okay to enslave/own them; sorta the same way today we consider it okay to own a dog, cat, or any other animal that isn't human. People will come up with all sorts of logic in order to justify evil behavior.
Now care to answer my question?
So the Germans would view it to be WRONG if anyone took from them.
Making my point that NEVER at any point in recorded history has there been a case of stealing to be right.
Stealing from another, sure, but not from me !
LOL
Not quite. If I recall correctly, you claimed there has never been a time when taking something that doesn't belong to you was considered okay. (which is the same as stealing) In this case the NAZI's just redefined stealing as taking from me, not you. So they were okay with taking something that doesn't belong to them (the point you made) as long as they were taking from specific people.
Ken
PS let me guess; you aren't going to answer my question are you. Why am I not surprised....
My point to you, Ken, was that your example was wrong because the Nazi's didn't view stealing as right, they viewed stealing what belong to Jews as right.
Stealing was still wrong to them since if someone stole from them they would say, "that's wrong".
Actually you said; "
taking something that doesn't belong to you is considered wrong". My objection is, it is not always considered wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you. Also what I initially objected to is, even if we do acknowledge stealing is wrong, it can't be demonstrated as wrong thus it isn't objective.
Care to answer my question now that I've answered yours?
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:00 am
by Nicki
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:23 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:55 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:36 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:08 am
Ken,
If you didn't say that Morality exists only in the mind, then I am sorry.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your view.
Yo use your examples and to make sure we are discussing the same thing in the same way:
Morality:
Objective - Stealing is wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right
Subjective - It may be justifiable to steal to feed your children.
Would you agree with this?
No. I don't agree with what you labeled objective, because it can't be proven/demonstrated as wrong.
So, you are saying that, the statement : Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right.
Is NOT an objective statement?
Even though it has a FACTUAL, provable, base to it and is NOT based on opinion?
When the Nazi's came to power in Europe, German citizens were legally allowed to take from Jewish people, because they were considered inferior. There are countless examples especially during war when what you might call stealing was believed to be okay (by those in power) considering the circumstances. Your statement is wrong.
They probably didn't call it stealing; they probably referred to it as appropriation or something, to make it seem acceptable.
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:52 am
by Kenny
Nicki wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:00 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:23 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:55 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:36 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:08 am
Ken,
If you didn't say that Morality exists only in the mind, then I am sorry.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your view.
Yo use your examples and to make sure we are discussing the same thing in the same way:
Morality:
Objective - Stealing is wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right
Subjective - It may be justifiable to steal to feed your children.
Would you agree with this?
No. I don't agree with what you labeled objective, because it can't be proven/demonstrated as wrong.
So, you are saying that, the statement : Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right.
Is NOT an objective statement?
Even though it has a FACTUAL, provable, base to it and is NOT based on opinion?
When the Nazi's came to power in Europe, German citizens were legally allowed to take from Jewish people, because they were considered inferior. There are countless examples especially during war when what you might call stealing was believed to be okay (by those in power) considering the circumstances. Your statement is wrong.
They probably didn't call it stealing; they probably referred to it as appropriation or something, to make it seem acceptable.
Exactly! Evil people will come up with all sorts of ways to justify their evil actions.
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:42 am
by RickD
Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:52 am
Nicki wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:00 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:23 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:55 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:36 am
No. I don't agree with what you labeled objective, because it can't be proven/demonstrated as wrong.
So, you are saying that, the statement : Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right.
Is NOT an objective statement?
Even though it has a FACTUAL, provable, base to it and is NOT based on opinion?
When the Nazi's came to power in Europe, German citizens were legally allowed to take from Jewish people, because they were considered inferior. There are countless examples especially during war when what you might call stealing was believed to be okay (by those in power) considering the circumstances. Your statement is wrong.
They probably didn't call it stealing; they probably referred to it as appropriation or something, to make it seem acceptable.
Exactly! Evil people will come up with all sorts of ways to justify their evil actions.
Evil?
On what basis can you call someone evil?
Your subjective view of what is evil, is meaningless. Subjectively, Nazis weren't evil. Their acts weren't evil. Killing millions of Jews and others, couldn't possibly be evil, under a subjective morality worldview.
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:32 am
by Kenny
Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:52 am
Nicki wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:00 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:23 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:55 am
So, you are saying that, the statement : Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right.
Is NOT an objective statement?
Even though it has a FACTUAL, provable, base to it and is NOT based on opinion?
When the Nazi's came to power in Europe, German citizens were legally allowed to take from Jewish people, because they were considered inferior. There are countless examples especially during war when what you might call stealing was believed to be okay (by those in power) considering the circumstances. Your statement is wrong.
They probably didn't call it stealing; they probably referred to it as appropriation or something, to make it seem acceptable.
Exactly! Evil people will come up with all sorts of ways to justify their evil actions.
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:42 amEvil?
On what basis can you call someone evil?
Your subjective view of what is evil, is meaningless.
It may be meaningless to you, but it is not meaningless to me, and in the context of the conversation my view is the only one that counts.
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:42 amSubjectively, Nazis weren't evil. Their acts weren't evil. Killing millions of Jews and others, couldn't possibly be evil, under a subjective morality worldview.
I've made this point before (I don't think it was with you) but I will repeat because this subjective/objective dead horse keeps coming up.
If we assume morality is based on God's word, it is still subjective because it is based on what God says, just as it would be if it were based on what I or anybody else says. If you think of anything else objective; math, laws, volume, etc, in theory if God said 1+1=17, that a quart is equal to a gallon, or that it is legal to drive 100 mph on any of the US highways, we can all agree that God would be just as wrong as if I, you, or anybody else said it. God cannot arbitrarily proclaim different answers to that which is objective. IOW if "X" is wrong, it can't be wrong because God says it is wrong, it has to be wrong for a reason that has nothing to do with God.
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:55 am
by RickD
Kenny wrote:
If we assume morality is based on God's word...
We don't assume any such thing. Would you like to try again?
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:02 pm
by Kenny
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:55 am
Kenny wrote:
If we assume morality is based on God's word...
We don't assume any such thing. Would you like to try again?
God’s word, God’s nature, anything associated with God. If not any of those things what do you base it on?
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:20 pm
by RickD
Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:02 pm
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:55 am
Kenny wrote:
If we assume morality is based on God's word...
We don't assume any such thing. Would you like to try again?
God’s word, God’s nature, anything associated with God. If not any of those things what do you base it on?
Kenny,
You have a serious issue when it comes to understanding basic words in the English language.
Also, saying that morality is subjective if it's based on what God says, because what God says is the same as a subjective opinion of a person, shows that you continue to refuse to understand the nature of God.
It's beyond the point of ridiculous.
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:00 pm
by Kenny
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:20 pm
Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:02 pm
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:55 am
Kenny wrote:
If we assume morality is based on God's word...
We don't assume any such thing. Would you like to try again?
God’s word, God’s nature, anything associated with God. If not any of those things what do you base it on?
Kenny,
saying that morality is subjective if it's based on what God says, because what God says is the same as a subjective opinion of a person, shows that you continue to refuse to understand the nature of God.
What is it that I don’t understand? Please explain
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:50 pm
by RickD
Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:00 pm
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:20 pm
Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:02 pm
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:55 am
Kenny wrote:
If we assume morality is based on God's word...
We don't assume any such thing. Would you like to try again?
God’s word, God’s nature, anything associated with God. If not any of those things what do you base it on?
Kenny,
saying that morality is subjective if it's based on what God says, because what God says is the same as a subjective opinion of a person, shows that you continue to refuse to understand the nature of God.
What is it that I don’t understand? Please explain
This has already been explained to you countless times. It's fruitless to take the time explaining it again. You absolutely refuse to understand that which you think you're arguing against.
In reality, you argue against a straw man. You concoct some illogical thing in your mind, which has nothing to do with anything, then you use more illogic to "refute" the idea which you made up yourself. Then you say that we should just agree to disagree, when you don't even understand that with which you disagree. Then you go on in future threads, spouting the nonsense that you've concocted, thinking it refutes something that it doesn't even address.
I'd be more patient and sympathetic, if you had some kind of learning disability which keeps you from understanding basic English vocabulary. But no, you're an intelligent guy who has blinded himself to the truth. You need to open yourself up to the truth, Kenny. Pull off the blinders, so you can see clearly.
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:17 pm
by Kenny
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:50 pm
Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:00 pm
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:20 pm
Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:02 pm
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:55 am
We don't assume any such thing. Would you like to try again?
God’s word, God’s nature, anything associated with God. If not any of those things what do you base it on?
Kenny,
saying that morality is subjective if it's based on what God says, because what God says is the same as a subjective opinion of a person, shows that you continue to refuse to understand the nature of God.
What is it that I don’t understand? Please explain
This has already been explained to you countless times. It's fruitless to take the time explaining it again. You absolutely refuse to understand that which you think you're arguing against.
In reality, you argue against a straw man. You concoct some illogical thing in your mind, which has nothing to do with anything, then you use more illogic to "refute" the idea which you made up yourself. Then you say that we should just agree to disagree, when you don't even understand that with which you disagree. Then you go on in future threads, spouting the nonsense that you've concocted, thinking it refutes something that it doesn't even address.
I'd be more patient and sympathetic, if you had some kind of learning disability which keeps you from understanding basic English vocabulary. But no, you're an intelligent guy who has blinded himself to the truth. You need to open yourself up to the truth, Kenny. Pull off the blinders, so you can see clearly.
Absurd; doesn’t merit a response. I think we’re done here.
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:59 am
by PaulSacramento
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:26 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:25 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:38 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:14 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:38 am
The Germans at that time felt they were the superior race, so of course they would consider it wrong to steal from the superior race, it's only okay when you take from those who are inferior
Same thing with Slavery; slaves were considered to be 3/5 human so it was okay to enslave/own them; sorta the same way today we consider it okay to own a dog, cat, or any other animal that isn't human. People will come up with all sorts of logic in order to justify evil behavior.
Now care to answer my question?
So the Germans would view it to be WRONG if anyone took from them.
Making my point that NEVER at any point in recorded history has there been a case of stealing to be right.
Stealing from another, sure, but not from me !
LOL
Not quite. If I recall correctly, you claimed there has never been a time when taking something that doesn't belong to you was considered okay. (which is the same as stealing) In this case the NAZI's just redefined stealing as taking from me, not you. So they were okay with taking something that doesn't belong to them (the point you made) as long as they were taking from specific people.
Ken
PS let me guess; you aren't going to answer my question are you. Why am I not surprised....
My point to you, Ken, was that your example was wrong because the Nazi's didn't view stealing as right, they viewed stealing what belong to Jews as right.
Stealing was still wrong to them since if someone stole from them they would say, "that's wrong".
Actually you said; "
taking something that doesn't belong to you is considered wrong". My objection is, it is not always considered wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you. Also what I initially objected to is, even if we do acknowledge stealing is wrong, it can't be demonstrated as wrong thus it isn't objective.
Care to answer my question now that I've answered yours?
So you are telling me the the Nazi's viewed it good when someone took what was theirs ??
Please show me when ANYONE has every viewed someone taking stealing something of theirs as good.
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:13 pm
by Kenny
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:59 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:26 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:25 am
Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:38 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:14 am
So the Germans would view it to be WRONG if anyone took from them.
Making my point that NEVER at any point in recorded history has there been a case of stealing to be right.
Stealing from another, sure, but not from me !
LOL
Not quite. If I recall correctly, you claimed there has never been a time when taking something that doesn't belong to you was considered okay. (which is the same as stealing) In this case the NAZI's just redefined stealing as taking from me, not you. So they were okay with taking something that doesn't belong to them (the point you made) as long as they were taking from specific people.
Ken
PS let me guess; you aren't going to answer my question are you. Why am I not surprised....
My point to you, Ken, was that your example was wrong because the Nazi's didn't view stealing as right, they viewed stealing what belong to Jews as right.
Stealing was still wrong to them since if someone stole from them they would say, "that's wrong".
Actually you said; "
taking something that doesn't belong to you is considered wrong". My objection is, it is not always considered wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you. Also what I initially objected to is, even if we do acknowledge stealing is wrong, it can't be demonstrated as wrong thus it isn't objective.
Care to answer my question now that I've answered yours?
So you are telling me the the Nazi's viewed it good when someone took what was theirs ??
Please show me when ANYONE has every viewed someone taking stealing something of theirs as good.
No you've got it backwards. The NAZI had no problem taking from other people. The person who steals from others still doesn't want things stolen from him.
Re: WLC and the moral argument
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:10 am
by PaulSacramento
I give up.