I missed the **. Would you say that his version is better than the official one?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Objective Morality...
- Thread starter jonathan180iq
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Nope.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
What official one? The Golden Rule? Most religions have their own version, so maybe it's time to nail it down.
Take the right to liberty, are we born with that in full force? Is it immoral or wrong for parents to confine their 2 year-olds in a play pen or crib to keep them from hurting themselves.....or for the temporary convenience of the parents?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Some people are entirely and 100% impervious to pain. Your example does not hold up.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Do you wanna say what logical fallacy you just used, or shall I? I'm way beyond shocked an disappointed.
The UDHR.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
This is one of the more blatant examples of logical fallacy by Equivocation I've seen in a while, where double meanings or ambiguity of language are used to mislead or misrepresent the Truth. In this case the argument is made attempting to misrepresent the certainty of harm caused by heat to be irrelevant to those (few dozen in the world) who don't feel pain. Ironically, those few are usually caused more harm precisely because they don't feel the warning of pain of the heat.
As with all logical fallacies, I always have to wonder at the motivation behind their use, particularly in discussion forums where logic and reasoning behind arguments are everyday concerns. Who are they attempting to deceive? Do they actually think that people won't see such an obvious misrepresentation, or are they just that "good" at deceiving themselves?
Rationalization (offering false or inauthentic excuses for our claim because we know the real reasons are much less persuasive or more embarrassing to share, or more harsh than the manufactured ones given) is also a logical fallacy used here. But like equivocation, there's no ability to differentiate whether self-deception is involved along with the feeble attempt at the general deception of others.
Last edited:
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Don't suppose you'd care to defend your cavalier response, which is probably wise since the UN is nothing but a cesspool of corruption. Hell, Obama's official US policies don't even stand up for individual freedom any more either, trashing the Constitution in the process.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
It's not a logical fallacy. One of the ancient Greek philosophers (I don't remember his name ATM) was so convinced that everything, including pain, is only an illusion to the point other people had to constantly be around him to keep him safe.
And of course their is BDSM, in which some people are sexually aroused by pain.
And then so some pain is a religious experience.
It's not a logical fallacy because I can cast down your position with ease.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Sadists don't get off on masochists, cause they enjoy it--defeats the whole purpose (re: Little Shop of Horrors). Besides, it's spelled with an "e" which implies something more profound, profundity being something I'd wager you're not particularly into.
Here's mud in your eye.**
** The origin of this phrase is Biblical. Jesus spat in the dirt and rubbed the mud into they eyes of a blind man to heal the man's sight--John 9:6. Jesus was no doubt thinking of Jer. 5:21: "Listen, O foolish, senseless people--you with the eyes that do not see and the ears that do not listen".
"He who has ears, let him hear [the Truth]"--Mark 4:9 and many other places.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
What do you understand from "Objective Morality" exactly? In easy English please.
Regards
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I guess I don't think that either is "better" than the other. In regards to your feelings on Obama, can you ellaborate as to why you feel this way?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I guess I don't think that either is "better" than the other. In regards to your feelings on Obama, can you ellaborate as to why you feel this way?
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Is trashing the Constitution not enough? Selective enforcement of the law, especially immigration; Getting his henchman/woman to get Obamacare passed without it ever allowing it to be read; bragging about seeking racial revenge; the treasonous actions, incompetence and cover up of Benghazi; his lies that "“Under (Obamacare), no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes", or that "you'll be able to keep your plan and your doctor"; the IRS targeting political groups and the resulting "loss" of emails; turning a blind eye to voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers; Works toward voter fraud by fighting requirements for voter ID; IRAN!; calling the Islamic terrorism at Fort Hood, "work place violence", exchanging 5 top level terrorists from Guantanamo for one US deserter----- I'm out of time.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I could ask a lot of stuff about the claims just made but one I am very interested to hear is how did Obama seek racial revenge? Like....at all. One of the things that was a common complaint in the African American community was that he didn't' do anything for racial issues.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Obama is all about himself. One way he does that is to demagogue issues. He told his supporters Nov. 2, 2012, "Don't boo, vote. Voting is the best revenge". What justifies revenge? Revenge against what? The white, wealthy, Republican capitalist. We don't even talk any more about taking revenge on mass murderers, pedophiles and such, just bringing them to justice.
And you're right about Blacks complaining about Obama, they feel betrayed after voting for him overwhelmingly because he was black. But this disillusionment didn't really take hold until after this speech and the election the next Tuesday. He'd said to begin with that he would unite the country. Just the opposite has happened. Do you know how race became a Democrat issue after their being the party of the KKK? Nixon made one mistake in 1960 by making no comment about MLK being in Jail in Alabama. MLK's father switched from Republican, the party of Lincoln and abolition, to the Democrats, which still had flaming racists like Sens. Byrd, Talmadge and the worst of all Johnson.
MLK himself, originally a Republican, held no party bias, choosing instead the politically adept practice of keeping his options open with both sides, using the Black vote as his bargaining chip. But when he was murdered, that being almost certainly one of the reasons he was assassinated, he was replaced by race warlords like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Meanwhile, 10 years later, the Republicans, led by Goldwater, told Nixon it was time to go or be impeached.
Obama knew very well what he was doing when he used that inflammatory word, revenge, and all the implications people would take from it. You say you could ask a lot of stuff about the claims. They aren't just claims, why would you even think that? Well, where do you get your news?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I want to add to that list how he worked to pass the ACA without anyone reading it and how is he responsible for the IRS when the president is not in charge of the IRS? Taxes are raised and levied not through the president, but through congress.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
What he said was actually very mature when he told them to vote rather than boo. He also wasn't just addressing blacks. He was addressing everyone in that case. Getting out there and voting is really the only thing that matters when it comes to elections and the government in terms of what we do as people.
And the racial polarization was a reaction to the fact we had a black president. It really just showed how racist we still were as a country. He didn't insight anything with it.
The democratic party when it was part of the racist south. Slowly over time the south shifted to be the republicans rather than the democrats. So the same geographical demographics stayed with the same semi-racist tendencies. The same people more or less flip flopped the party lines. That is why republicans were once the anti-racism party.
Though I also think its worth noting that Lincoln wasn't actually for ending slavery. He was indifferent to it. He did it because the Civil war was midway re-campaigned to the north as a war for justice against slavery. Initially it was not. It was a political ploy to gain more support for a war and not out of the goodness of the hearts of a political party.
But I think we are getting well off topic here.