Originally Posted by
Roy L
Lie.
Stupid garbage.
Strawman. You can't address what I said, so you make up some stupid $#!+ and pretend I said it.
Strawman. You can't address what I said, so you make up some stupid $#!+ and pretend I said it.
"Grounded in" doesn't mean "related to." You're just lying. As usual.
Wrong again. A moral statement that expresses an objective fact of human nature is a positive fact.
Your constant, despicable dishonesty is the source of my sickness.
Nope. Moral statements are positive claims about how human actions in society affect reproductive success through society. They can be true or false, and it can be extremely difficult to determine which is which, but their content is a positive description. Normative statements are a subset of positive statements, not a disjoint set.
But they cannot both be right.
Opinions cannot change facts. That is one of your problematic beliefs. Moral sentiments are typically opinions rather than facts because it is so hard to judge the facts, but their actual content is still positive, whether true or false.
No. He demonstrated an empirical fact. The didn't prove a theorem. That is why it is called the theory of evolution and not a theorem.
ROTFL!! You just made a prize fool of yourself again, Steven. The reason I can't prove it is because it IS an empirical issue, and not an exercise in mathematics or formal logic.
Oh? A "byproduct"? He stated quite clearly that the human moral faculty was a necessary adaptation given human social existence.
Non sequitur. Nature doesn't "intend" anything. Nevertheless, the result of that blind, undirected process of evolution is a positive, objective fact: the genetic make-up of a given organism. And just as a given length of finch beak is objectively correct or incorrect in a given physical environment, so is a given moral principle objectively correct or not depending on the environment, especially the societal and cultural environment.
OTC, nature is constantly judging all moralities on exactly that basis, and could in principle, by that means, determine which are objectively correct and incorrect. In practice, we don't arrive at any neat, final product, but in principle it is possible to describe one, and to judge how closely other ones come to it.
No, he was clear that human moral capacity was fairly uniform, and had to be to confer a reproductive advantage.
Nonsense. The human moral capacity must reside on a fairly modest number of genes, and those will, by sheer chance, sometimes be identical in two given individuals. Moreover, there is nothing abstract or subjective in the biological capacity. The abstractions and subjective opinions are built USING that capacity.
Nor do I. I simply observe that for a given set of conditions, there is probably one or at least a very small number of moral systems that will work best, and are therefore objectively correct under those conditions.
But they aren't all equally correct, (i.e., effective in achieving reproductive success) and that is the POINT of their being part of our evolving nature: they will be winnowed, the inferior and incorrect being supplanted by the superior and thus more correct.
I didn't say it was indisputable, stop lying. For example, you do not believe in an equal individual right to liberty. That's a moral point you dispute with me, right there.
But however much we may dispute it, it's a positive claim about what will work objectively, in society, not a mere subjective difference in taste, and we can't both be right about it.
It is not only grounded in positive fact, but is a statement that ASSERTS a positive fact, whether it is actually true or not.
I have explained WHY it is objectively true: i.e., why it will make society stronger and better able to compete.
Ah, yes, you most certainly do.
I make no such appeal. I identify objedctive facts and their logical implications.
It's true that unlike you, I do not respect (let alone subscribe to) false, absurd and dishonest views.
You are at liberty to refuse to know the facts I identify.
No, BASING IT ON fact.
No, by objective causal entailment, not mere association. My opinions might be right or wrong, but they are opinions ABOUT propositions that are either true or false.
NEWS FLASH: Those do not by any means mean the same thing.
I notice you snipped the context to make it look like I said ACTUAL states can't be immoral, when the context makes it clear I said the state per se can't inherently be immoral. Certainly a given individual state can be immoral, just as an individual human being can, and history is filled with the corpses of both sorts. But the doctrine of original sin notwithstanding, the state can't be immoral in its basic nature any more than man can.
Do they? What do you mean by "gangs"? Most gangs do a piss-poor job of surviving, and their members do even worse.
Right. Evidence but not proof, as time and chance happeneth to all.
Power is often dangerous to those who hold and wield it -- in some societies the most common manner of royal succession has been assassination, and dynasties have wiped themselves out in pursuit of the throne -- but in the long run, survival is the only feasible criterion for judgment of right.
Lie.
Stupid lie.
Stupid, evil lie.
Stupid, evil, despicable lie.
Fabricated out of whole cloth by you.
Another lie. I've just explained how the state's morality can be judged.
Infantile.
No, you're constantly chanting stupid garbage about the state always being bad, and you know it.
You constantly lie your silly head off, and you call MY view amoral and sociopathic?
You don't argue, period. You just assert.
And name-call, of course.
Wrong again. The first is irrelevant, as slavery proved, and the second is only an approximation of the third.
Lie.
No, that's just another stupid lie from you. The first is BASED ON the second, at least in democratic societies.
Non sequitur. Nature doesn't intend people to see, either, but we can certainly deduce that people who can see are better equipped for survival than people who can't.
Bald lie. Evolution works on the basis of individuals' survival and reproduction. It just happens, as a contingent empirical fact, that individual human survival is intimately linked with societal strength and health. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for chimpanzees and gorillas. It DOESN'T go for orangutans, which are solitary.
"Good"? Isn't that just you begging the question again with a normative claim?
No, you're just lying again, this time about what YOU have plainly written. Your actual "contribution" to moral evolution is that non-collectivized individuals, up to and including the majority in society, should be robbed, enslaved, and sacrificed for the unearned profit of landowners.
Self-contradiction. Legal rights only exist in the context of the collective, the society that encodes and secures them.
Based on what? Blank out.
No, such impoverished conceptions do not permit even the most elementary understanding of rights.
Irrelevant.
Stupid garbage.
Ah. That must be why you slag it so relentlessly and dishonestly.
Lie. The balance of LVT + UIE is exquisitely just and efficient.
Eventually, my version will prevail. It's just a question of how much evil, misery and slaughter apologists for landowner privilege will inflict on long-suffering humanity in the meantime.
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us