Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[otseng]

Johnny boy,

Moderator Comment

Please do not call anyone other than their username or their given name.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 326 by JohnA]

[Replying to post 327 by JohnA]

[Replying to post 361 by JohnA]

Moderator Warning


It is against the rules to publicly respond to moderator warnings.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JohnA]

You did say the Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide, and questioned if it was wrong to completely wipe a race out in self-defence. It is not suprising that it could be taken as justistification for genocide.

Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me. But please send me the quote where I said that ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide.

But I didn't claim you said "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide." So why would you expect me to be able to quote you saying that? I can however quote you saying Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide.

"Genocide is against law and international law (and UN protects it).

The Nazi's may not have had this genocide law.
The Nazi's may have thought that these group of Jews wanted to destroy them or the world.

So, there are reasons why genocide would be seen as 'not wrong'."

Or you can apologies and take your accusation back.

How about you apologize for accusing me of quote mining.

Danmark would not apologise, because his options are never fiction, they are always fact, because non-existent Jesus probably told him.

Doesn't his non-theist tag tell you that he doesn't believe in Jesus?

A race ( or any group or individual) should and could be wiped out (or locked up) if they threaten the survival of the bigger population. That is why we have prisons today. That is why we have laws like murder today. That is why soldiers can kill other people in war.. That is why people can kill other people in self-defense. I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here or accuse me of. Can you be clear here please?

I am saying what you said could be taken as justistification for genocide.

Maybe you should read this thread and my posts on this. I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining.

Again with this accusation. I was asking for clarification.

Morality = ethics and empathy. The sources are (in this order)
1. Evolution - min extinction and max survival
2. Society - we form laws
3. Thinking - we discuss things on the public square.

Which is why I am asking you, if you thought racisim is not wrong at first glance, only by analysis, by discussing things on public square for example, could one figure out that it is wrong?

If an individual, a group (any group, however you want to define it) is trying to wipe out the bigger population of that same species, then our evolutionary ethics and empathy will kick it and try to prevent this. We (human animals) are here today, and we got here without society (laws) and thinking (discussing things on public squares). And that is the evidence for me that evolution did and have given us something to help with the survival of the our population/species.

Early human societies grew bigger and probably formed some form of punishment for behavior that would max the extinction, min the suffering / survival of that society. That is how laws were born. Not everything were in in in the first pass.

Slavery, discrimination against woman, gay rights, race segregation, abortion, genocide, etc. were ones that were not that easy to just outlaw. This was probably because of some middle eastern desert shepard had a book that said there was nothing wrong with it.

But human animals could reason, and talk. So, we also formed public squares to discuss these 'harder' topics and how they should be legalised. We are still discussing gay rights and abortion, which is a joke. These should be obvious: legal rights, pro choice. But I am sure you have a different opinion, HENCE this is what i mean by THINKING.

Surely here you are talking about convincing other people that racism is wrong, as opposed to figuring it out that racism is wrong.

Do you think apartheid is wrong? And if so, why?

Yes, apartheid is wrong, because I seriously don't like what they are doing.

Is it only wrong when whites do it against blacks, or is it wrong the other way around as well?

Wrong both way round.

No, what I am saying is that using 'objective moral value' is wrong grammatically. It is illogical. It's like saying there are 'married bachelors'. Each word is valid and logical on its own, but not if you string them together.

Again, each word objective moral laws is valid, but saying 'objective moral laws' exist, is rubbish. That implies some person or being created laws, made them objective. So, are these law applicable to this being as well? If so, then this being could not have created these laws, but the other way around - which is clearly a contradiction. if not, then these laws are subjective for the being, so can not be objective for all.

Why then did are you disagree when I stated there is no such thing as objective moral value since value are always subjective?

But Danmark KNOWS the answer. He KNOWS that 'objective moral laws' exist. He just can not tell us how he knows this. It is one of these where he KNOWS when not asked, but does not KNOW when asked. This is typical in responses from him where he accuses (straw man), make claims (assertion fallacies). This is quite easy to explain given his law background, and it is easy to see which side he was on (defense vs prosecution). That is the ultimate biased grounded in fallacies. Maybe you should ask Danmark and we can all remove the guess work.

Objectivists, at least those who knows better, accept such laws as self-evidently true axioms, and only defend it as such.

but not sure on objective morals

You are straw manning me again.

I can quote you:

"I do not know for sure is there is objective morals - evolution does give us something that is trotted to help survival..."

I said many times already that morality = ethics and empathy.
We got that (ethics and empathy) from evolution. If you want to call that objective then yes be my guess. There is something that we got from evolution, or something that evolved.
Do you agree?

I do agree, and I don't want to call that objective.

What is your definition of objective morals? Do they exist, can not back it up with evidence and a peer reviewed scientific journal?

By objective morals, I mean moral that are independent from any agency/mind. They do not exist and as such there is no evidence for it in peer reviewed scientific journal or otherwise.

Again, I explained this already. I have made assumption as to what I think Danmark is referring to when he is claiming (without any evidence) that 'objective moral laws' exist.
Evolution is not a being - that is one difference. Another difference is the use of the word law; evolution is not a being, not an authority. And it seems like evolution has not applied these 'objective' empathy / ethics the same for each species, or the same for all living things: life eats life to survive.

To recap, moral comes from evolution, it's up to us to decide if we want call it objective or not, but we cannot use the word law since evolution is a process as opposed to a law giving agent?

Again, I have covered this already. If a group of a human population wants to destroy the whole population then it would not be seen as wrong to destroy this group.
Since I do not have a real world example of this, I am using the words 'seen as' because I have not seen it. I am speculating.

So you are saying genocide can be justified as self defence, the term "seen as" only refers to the lack of an real world example of such?

And for that I offer evolution as my basis of speculation and also the tribal nature of humans and the societal nature. Given that Scientists are fighting bacteria all the time to keep the human race going, I do not see any reason why we would not defend our-self if a section of our spices wants to wipe the whole. Do you?

Defend is fine, defend with violence is fine too, I am not sure about complete destruction of a society no matter their intention.

I have repeated that so many times to the same users as well. Maybe read my whole post before you repond, and read the history of my posts on this subject. It would save me time and you.

I did, it didn't make sense which is why I am asking for clarification. You got annoyed with people saying you are justifying genocide, then say follow it up by saying it's okay in self defence.

Right, so people can troll me, accuse me and make empty claims, and I should just say: YES SURE. I wasted time now explaining my position against just because of these users that straw man me. And the irony is that they wasted your time as well. You may not value your time, but I do value mine.

Well I still don't understand you stance fully, you should spend more time in explaining it. There is a difference between misunderstanding you and strawmaning you. The first is a mistake, the latter malicious.

But I didn't claim you said "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide." So why would you expect me to be able to quote you saying that? I can however quote you saying Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide.

"Genocide is against law and international law (and UN protects it).

The Nazi's may not have had this genocide law.
The Nazi's may have thought that these group of Jews wanted to destroy them or the world.

So, there are reasons why genocide would be seen as 'not wrong'."

You need to decide if you want to quote mind me or not. I already made my position crystal clear. Either you are saying:
I am saying "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide." or
No I am not saying that.

Saying "Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide" clearly implies that it is not justification enough. And I have mentioned what these other things could be: evolution, their fear of being wiped out, etc. I made the point very clear, and have been in this thread. It is only people like you that are attempting to straw man me. Danmark and Keith did straw man.

I asked you to send me the quote where I said that ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide. You have not done this, have you?
I wrote "Can you do this, without quote mining"? And above you are trying to say you can not quote mind me, but you can if you use the words "could be seen". The way I read your above response now is that you are saying that if you could somehow bend this "could be seen" into a more direct "is seen" then you would.

Consider this sentence from you: "You did say the Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide, and questioned if it was wrong to completely wipe a race out in self-defence. It is not suprising that it could be taken as justistification for genocide. "

The way I read this before (and still do) is that you have taken this "could be seen" and interpret it (without surprise) as ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide. That is your interpretation not mine. I am asking you to clarify this, and you are dodging my question.


So, I take it you are not getting this money that I offered. Could you at least take your accusation back?

Also, you still have not answered me:
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here or accuse me of. Can you be clear here please?

How about you apologize for accusing me of quote mining.

I wrote: "Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me" in response to where you ADMITTED that one could deduce a quote mine --- your words "You did say the Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide, and questioned if it was wrong to completely wipe a race out in self-defence. It is not suprising that it could be taken as justistification for genocide. "

The way I read this is that you (Bust Nak) can take this "could be seen" and interpret it as ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide.

And I wrote also "I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining. " An attempt, you have not been successful as yet. But I can see you are trying, but you are also not trying as you will be guilty of straw man fallacy. That is an awkward position that you got yourself in.

So, can you please point out where I accused you of QUOTE MINING. Or apologize for this second false accusation.

I did say: " I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining. "
Referring to the thinking part in "racism" stuff.

And I did say: "You are straw manning me again. "
But that was referring to your interpretation of objective morals and my "thinking part".

Doesn't his non-theist tag tell you that he doesn't believe in Jesus?

I am not the one that made his claims. He said that this god does not exist and that free will does not exist. He also said that there is evidence for this god, but this evidence is inadmissible. He also said that this Jesus appears to him saying he is not a god or saying to him to continue. I am not 100% sure of the exact details. I have asked Danmark to explain this obvious contradiction, or just to come clean that it either to mock theists or he just made it up. He is upset with me pointing this out and is clearly using back hand tactics to troll me.

I fail to see why only theists should be questioned when they make claims. I fail to see why only theists should be questioned when they make illogical claims. I fail to see how it is a good thing to humiliate theists with this type mocking (if it is indeed mocking, Danmark fails to say).

Lastly, Danmark can not be a non-theist according to this http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/1 ... -atheists/
a non-theist is "...people who do not involve themselves with either religion or anti-religion. ... In many cases, this comes across as apathy or disinterest..."
But Danmark is registered on this site, and does have an interest in religion. Actually, I think he knows more about religion than most because he says there is EVIDENCE for this bible god, but he refuses to provide it. Will he also refuse to enter that $1mil Randi challenge?

Again with this accusation. I was asking for clarification.

The accusation is that you are attention to straw man me. I think you are right, it is inaccurate. You did straw man me.

You wrote:
"Right, so there is no such thing as objective moral value since value are always subjective. You are sure there is no objective moral laws but not sure on objective morals, so what is the difference between objective morals and objective moral laws? "

I interpret it as:
"You are sure there is no objective moral laws but not sure on objective morals" = straw man
"so what is the difference between objective morals and objective moral laws" = attempting to justify your straw man via clarification request.

You could say that I am wrong here (my interpretation of your words), but I do have a justification for my claim -> you can not deny that.

Which is why I am asking you, if you thought racisim is not wrong at first glance, only by analysis, by discussing things on public square for example, could one figure out that it is wrong?

Is this not what history says?
It also depends of how you define race. You could deny history, that people are tribal, if you want to as well.

Surely here you are talking about convincing other people that racism is wrong, as opposed to figuring it out that racism is wrong.

Sure, if you do not have a democratic process, then a dictator may tell people what is right and wrong. If you have a process where you discuss it, in the public square, weighting up pros and cons, and offering the public itself a say, then it can be seen as convincing other people by figuring out it is wrong (i.e. it has consequences that are not conducive to minimize suffering in and of a population).

Btw, I think a capitalistic democracy has its own issues - but that is not for discussion now.

Yes, apartheid is wrong, because I seriously don't like what they are doing.

I agree, it is wrong.

And I'm not happy with your answer to WHY - saying you like something does not make it wrong. I do not like eating cake, that doe snot mean eating cake is wrong for everyone.
Why do you not like what they are doing?
Who are they? Can you be more clear here? I can only take your own word and hope you are not excused from it : "Well I still don't understand you stance fully, you should spend more time in explaining it. There is a difference between misunderstanding you and strawmaning you. The first is a mistake, the latter malicious. "

Wrong both way round.

Some people think apartheid is only possible to be one way. So, they refuse to answer if it is wrong both ways because they deny that it can be both ways.

Why then did are you disagree when I stated there is no such thing as objective moral value since value are always subjective?

I am not sure I understand your question. The grammar seems strange.
Value are subjective, always. Your value of time is different to mine, etc. Therefore, "Objective moral values" does not make sense. The value of "objective morals" makes no sense either as you have to define objective morals first and convince me there is an objective to the morals.
"Objective moral laws" does not make sense either as I explained why not.

Objectivists, at least those who knows better, accept such laws as self-evidently true axioms, and only defend it as such.

Am not sure what you are saying here.
Are you claiming that Danmark is an Objectivist? How do you know that? I do not understand how people can claim to know to believe other people's beliefs. Danmark seems to KNOW my beliefs, and also the beliefs of instantc. How do people do this? Is this something from evolution too? I do not have this ability to know other people's beliefs. I ask them to state it. Can you please tell me how you this other people's beliefs? Maybe you know how Danmark also knows other people's beliefs.
Danmark refuses to defend it. I asked him how he knows that this illogical 'objective moral laws' exist, and he could not tell me, or refuses to tell me.
Futhermore, there is no such thing as an Objectivist, not a pure one anyway. Philosophers define it different and each have their own opinion - they can not agree on the definition, nor produce a person that fits any definition exactly. And I can probably guess that no such person exist that fits this philosophical box 100%. Also, philosophy can not prove / disprove anything (like science) so, Objectivism can not be true. Defining it as true does not mean it is.

Also, even if I were a Relativist (whatever that is), what gives Danmark the right to insult me about it? What makes 'his' Objectivism' better than "Relativism"?

I know this is philosophy woo whoo, but I am sure you get my point.

I can quote you:
"I do not know for sure is there is objective morals - evolution does give us something that is trotted to help survival..."

But you are now straw manning me again. I explained this already (see above). You have missed the next bit of my writing where I said that if you want to call this "something from evolution" objective morals then you can, saying that I then agree that "objective morals" exists.


I can see you are trying to be fair, but I can see biased. And I can guess why there is a biased.


And you have not answered my questions:

We got that (ethics and empathy) from evolution. If you want to call that objective then yes be my guess. There is something that we got from evolution, or something that evolved.
Do you agree?
What is your definition of objective morals? Do they exist, can not back it up with evidence and a peer reviewed scientific journal?

Can you please answer the above? Or is your biased being forced onto me and I am the only one here under instigation?

To recap, moral comes from evolution, it's up to us to decide if we want call it objective or not, but we cannot use the word law since evolution is a process as opposed to a law giving agent?

No. "morals" above is "ethics and empathy" - my understanding of it.
Evolution gave us (human animal) and some other animals (I can not speak for all animals as I do not have these type insights to make blanked statements like Danmark can make without giving evidence) - something to maximize survival and minimize extinction. Evolution is the source of it. If you want to call this "something = objective morals" then YOU can claim it. But I do say there is something that we got from evolution, and it has to so with our ethics and empathy within a species to survive, but not across species (because life eats life).
So, if is one says "objective morals" is the same as, it entails, part of, consist of "something from evolution" within the human animal species - then I agree, since it is merely linguistics.
So, if is one says "objective morals" is exactly equal to "something from evolution" for all life - then I disagree. I want evidence to convince me. tell me what exactly this something from evolution is. Tell me how you can take that and say it is objective morals, especially if you have not even defined objective morals.

So you are saying genocide can be justified as self defence, the term "seen as" only refers to the lack of an real world example of such?

Where did I say or imply that genocide can be justified as self defence? Are you ATTEMPTING at straw manning me again?

"Seen as" can refer to the lack of an real world example and also to speculation, more justification needed, can be wrongly interpreted, etc.

I already covered this genocide thing multiple times. I can not explain to you how exactly this "ethics and empathy from evolution that seems to be in place for humans - evolved or not" works or what it is. Your keep on trying to extract bits of my words to try and make me agree to things that I did not say, even when I have explained it earlier. It's getting a bit boring. They say that people that are not experienced at debate are the ones that debate sentence by sentence. I think this is what is happening here, and that is why you are trying to be fair, but suspect your biased is crowding it.

Defend is fine, defend with violence is fine too, I am not sure about complete destruction of a society no matter their intention

This just shows me that you are in agreement with me. You are not completely sure what this "ethics and empathy from evolution that seems to be in place for humans - evolved or not" is.
If you did, then you would not use words such as "I am not sure about". You would be sure.

We are making progress.

I did, it didn't make sense which is why I am asking for clarification. You got annoyed with people saying you are justifying genocide, then say follow it up by saying it's okay in self defence.

Are you straw manning me again stating that I am said genocide is justified by self-defense alone?
How many posts have I written on this? Where exactly do you get this nonsense from that I am justifying genocide with self-defense alone? I mentioned evolution form the start here, I never denied the fact of evolution. I find your attempt and the Danmalrk and Keith's accusations disgusting. This is a deliberate attempt to discredit me, to assassinate my character. How is that justified? Do you justify that with your biased?

Well I still don't understand you stance fully, you should spend more time in explaining it. There is a difference between misunderstanding you and strawmaning you. The first is a mistake, the latter malicious.

Does this only apply to me, not to you?

Look in the mirror, please. Maybe you can start answering my questions and stop with the inexperienced debate style trying to discredit me, stop straw manning me.

[Bust Nak]

You need to decide if you want to quote mind me or not.

I have already decided I don't want to quite mine you.

I already made my position crystal clear.

No, you have not, which is why I am still asking for clarification.

Either you are saying:
I am saying "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide." or
No I am not saying that.

I am saying the latter. You are not saying "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide."

Saying "Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide" clearly implies that it is not justification enough.

How does "could be seen" clearly implies that it is not justification enough? Espically when you said the difference between the words 'seen as' refers to lack of a real world example and speculation.

And I have mentioned what these other things could be: evolution, their fear of being wiped out, etc. I made the point very clear, and have been in this thread.

Right, which is why I didn't claim you said anything like "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide."

It is only people like you that are attempting to straw man me. Danmark and Keith did straw man.

That's an accusation you cannot back up.

I asked you to send me the quote where I said that ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide. You have not done this, have you?

I wrote "Can you do this, without quote mining"?

Correct, and I don't have to back up a claim I didn't make.

And above you are trying to say you can not quote mind me, but you can if you use the words "could be seen". The way I read your above response now is that you are saying that if you could somehow bend this "could be seen" into a more direct "is seen" then you would.

I don't need to bend anything because I said "could be seen," I never said "is seen."

Consider this sentence from you: "You did say the Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide, and questioned if it was wrong to completely wipe a race out in self-defence. It is not suprising that it could be taken as justistification for genocide. "

That's right, and I have to quotes to back that up. Note the "could be seen" here.

The way I read this before (and still do) is that you have taken this "could be seen" and interpret it (without surprise) as ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide.

Then you are mistaken. Note that unlike you, I am not jumping to an accusation of dishonesty.

That is your interpretation not mine. I am asking you to clarify this, and you are dodging my question.

Incorrect, that is your interpretation of interpretation, not mine. I answered you precisely. Let me repeat it here: I didn't claim you said "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide."

So, I take it you are not getting this money that I offered.

Correct. I will not.

Could you at least take your accusation back?

The only accusation I made, is you were too aggressive and sensitive in accusating others for trolling you. So no, I will not be taking those accusation back.

Also, you still have not answered me:
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here or accuse me of. Can you be clear here please?

I am trying to saying what you said could be taken as justistification for genocide. I am accusing you of being aggressive and sensitive in accusating others for trolling you.

I wrote: "Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me" in response to where you ADMITTED that one could deduce a quote mine --- your words "You did say the Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide, and questioned if it was wrong to completely wipe a race out in self-defence. It is not suprising that it could be taken as justistification for genocide. "

I wasn't deducing that it was a quote mine at all, I am saying you were clear enough and it CAN be takening as justistification for genocide without quote mining you.

The way I read this is that you (Bust Nak) can take this "could be seen" and interpret it as ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide.

Then you are mistaken, I meant nothing of the sort. Again I can point out misunderstanding without an accusation of dishonesty.

And I wrote also "I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining. " An attempt, you have not been successful as yet. But I can see you are trying, but you are also not trying as you will be guilty of straw man fallacy. That is an awkward position that you got yourself in.

But I haven't quote mined you once.

So, can you please point out where I accused you of QUOTE MINING. Or apologize for this second false accusation.

I did say: " I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining. "
Referring to the thinking part in "racism" stuff.

And I did say: "You are straw manning me again. "
But that was referring to your interpretation of objective morals and my "thinking part".

How exactly is "Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me" or "I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining" not accusations of quote mining?

I am not the one that made his claims. He said that this god does not exist and that free will does not exist...

Forget it, I have enough to deal with here without dealing with your past history with Danmark.

The accusation is that you are attention to straw man me. I think you are right, it is inaccurate. You did straw man me.

You wrote:
"Right, so there is no such thing as objective moral value since value are always subjective. You are sure there is no objective moral laws but not sure on objective morals, so what is the difference between objective morals and objective moral laws? "

I interpret it as:
"You are sure there is no objective moral laws but not sure on objective morals" = straw man
"so what is the difference between objective morals and objective moral laws" = attempting to justify your straw man via clarification request.

You could say that I am wrong here (my interpretation of your words), but I do have a justification for my claim -> you can not deny that.

Inaccuracies are inaccuracies, not the same thing as a strawman. Strawman is a fallacy where one attacks an mispresentation. I am still trying to understanding your stance. Other than defending against the accusation of strawman or quotemine. I haven't attacked any argument of yours.

Is this not what history says?
It also depends of how you define race. You could deny history, that people are tribal, if you want to as well.

Sure, if you do not have a democratic process, then a dictator may tell people what is right and wrong. If you have a process where you discuss it, in the public square, weighting up pros and cons, and offering the public itself a say, then it can be seen as convincing other people by figuring out it is wrong (i.e. it has consequences that are not conducive to minimize suffering in and of a population).

I would say they were deciding the law via a democratic process, not whether racism was right or wrong. The same goes for a dictator, he tells people the law, he does not tell people what is wrong or wrong. While linked, I do not equate what is illegal with what is wrong.

Btw, I think a capitalistic democracy has its own issues - but that is not for discussion now.

Sure.

I agree, it is wrong.

And I'm not happy with your answer to WHY - saying you like something does not make it wrong. I do not like eating cake, that doe snot mean eating cake is wrong for everyone.

Only because your dislike for cake, is nothing compared to my dislike for apartheid.

Why do you not like what they are doing?
Who are they? Can you be more clear here? I can only take your own word and hope you are not excused from it : "Well I still don't understand you stance fully, you should spend more time in explaining it. There is a difference between misunderstanding you and strawmaning you. The first is a mistake, the latter malicious. "

Lots of reasons why I do not like what they are doing, I think I could sum it up with I don't like seeing people suffer. But then you can ask me "Why do you not like seeing people suffer?" I could point out I am empathic and when other people suffer, I suffer too. Then you could ask me "what makes suffering wrong?" as so on for each and every reason I give until I have no answer. So I am skipping all the intermediate steps straight to the "I just don't! Ok?" I am a moral subjectivist - they are wrong because in my opinion, they are wrong.

Some people think apartheid is only possible to be one way. So, they refuse to answer if it is wrong both ways because they deny that it can be both ways.

It's understandable, they see it as pay back for all the harm apartheid have done, as revenge. But if you ask them in isolation, is racism on whites as wrong as racism on blacks, they should have no problem telling you it's the same either way round.

I am not sure I understand your question. The grammar seems strange.
Value are subjective, always. Your value of time is different to mine, etc. Therefore, "Objective moral values" does not make sense. The value of "objective morals" makes no sense either as you have to define objective morals first and convince me there is an objective to the morals.
"Objective moral laws" does not make sense either as I explained why not.

I said there is no such thing as 'objective moral values' and you seem to be disagreeing with me for the reason that 'objective moral values' does not make any sense. If I say there is no such thing as 'married bachelors' would you agree or disargee with me? Is there a difference between saying "there is no such thing" and "such a thing makes no sense?"

Am not sure what you are saying here.

I am making a general point that moral objectivists can save themselves the trouble of having to prove their point by outright stating that they accept "murder is wrong" as self-evidently true. The moment they try to justisify it as the logical conclusion from other premises, they open cans of philosophy worms.

Are you claiming that Danmark is an Objectivist? How do you know that? I do not understand how people can claim to know to believe other people's beliefs. Danmark seems to KNOW my beliefs, and also the beliefs of instantc. How do people do this? Is this something from evolution too? I do not have this ability to know other people's beliefs. I ask them to state it. Can you please tell me how you this other people's beliefs? Maybe you know how Danmark also knows other people's beliefs.
Danmark refuses to defend it. I asked him how he knows that this illogical 'objective moral laws' exist, and he could not tell me, or refuses to tell me.

I don't know what Danmark's stance is exactly, I am pretty sure he is an objectivist. He referred to the Nazis violating objective moral law; but yet he rejects WLC's thesis on moral objectivism. I do know olavisjo and instantc are objectivist, I know their beliefs becuase of the claims they made.

Futhermore, there is no such thing as an Objectivist, not a pure one anyway. Philosophers define it different and each have their own opinion - they can not agree on the definition, nor produce a person that fits any definition exactly. And I can probably guess that no such person exist that fits this philosophical box 100%. Also, philosophy can not prove / disprove anything (like science) so, Objectivism can not be true. Defining it as true does not mean it is.

Also, even if I were a Relativist (whatever that is), what gives Danmark the right to insult me about it? What makes 'his' Objectivism' better than "Relativism"?

I know this is philosophy woo whoo, but I am sure you get my point.

Sure. Definitions changes and not everyone agree on the same definitions.

But you are now straw manning me again. I explained this already (see above). You have missed the next bit of my writing where I said that if you want to call this "something from evolution" objective morals then you can, saying that I then agree that "objective morals" exists.

I can see you are trying to be fair, but I can see biased. And I can guess why there is a biased.

But my point was, do YOU want to call this "something from evolution" objective morals? You have been telling me, you are not sure if you would. How am I misrepresenting your position?

And you have not answered my questions:

We got that (ethics and empathy) from evolution. If you want to call that objective then yes be my guess. There is something that we got from evolution, or something that evolved.
Do you agree?
What is your definition of objective morals? Do they exist, can not back it up with evidence and a peer reviewed scientific journal?

Can you please answer the above? Or is your biased being forced onto me and I am the only one here under instigation?

But I did answer you, directly, you just missed it - let me repeat my answers:
I do agree, and I don't want to call that objective.

By objective morals, I mean moral that are independent from any agency/mind. They do not exist and as such there is no evidence for it in peer reviewed scientific journal or otherwise.

No. "morals" above is "ethics and empathy" - my understanding of it.
Evolution gave us (human animal) and some other animals (I can not speak for all animals as I do not have these type insights to make blanked statements like Danmark can make without giving evidence) - something to maximize survival and minimize extinction. Evolution is the source of it. If you want to call this "something = objective morals" then YOU can claim it. But I do say there is something that we got from evolution, and it has to so with our ethics and empathy within a species to survive, but not across species (because life eats life).
So, if is one says "objective morals" is the same as, it entails, part of, consist of "something from evolution" within the human animal species - then I agree, since it is merely linguistics.
So, if is one says "objective morals" is exactly equal to "something from evolution" for all life - then I disagree. I want evidence to convince me. tell me what exactly this something from evolution is. Tell me how you can take that and say it is objective morals, especially if you have not even defined objective morals.

I am a moral subjectivist, a subset of moral relativists. There is no such thing as objective morals.

Where did I say or imply that genocide can be justified as self defence? Are you ATTEMPTING at straw manning me again?

That would be when you said "Genocide is against law and international law (and UN protects it).

The Nazi's may not have had this genocide law.
The Nazi's may have thought that these group of Jews wanted to destroy them or the world.

So, there are reasons why genocide would be seen as 'not wrong'"

"Seen as" can refer to the lack of an real world example and also to speculation, more justification needed, can be wrongly interpreted, etc.

Which is why I asked you what you meant by "seen as not wrong." And you told me you use the words to refer to the lack of an real world example and also to speculation. "More justification needed, can be wrongly interpreted" was not mentioned until now. So I ask you again, what did you mean when you said genocide would be seen as not wrong?

I already covered this genocide thing multiple times. I can not explain to you how exactly this "ethics and empathy from evolution that seems to be in place for humans - evolved or not" works or what it is. Your keep on trying to extract bits of my words to try and make me agree to things that I did not say, even when I have explained it earlier. It's getting a bit boring. They say that people that are not experienced at debate are the ones that debate sentence by sentence. I think this is what is happening here, and that is why you are trying to be fair, but suspect your biased is crowding it.

I am not even debating you, I am still trying to understand what your stance is. You are not sure if that something evolution gave you is objective or not. You deny the existence of objective moral law, yet you reject the idea that morality is a matter of opinion.

As for debating styles. I don't debate sentence by sentence. I debate point by point. And if someone inexperienced can poke holes in a post by debating it sentence by sentence, all it says is one needs to construct their posts better so that their opponent can't debate it sentence by sentence.

This just shows me that you are in agreement with me. You are not completely sure what this "ethics and empathy from evolution that seems to be in place for humans - evolved or not" is.
If you did, then you would not use words such as "I am not sure about". You would be sure.

We are making progress.

I am sure morality is the product of evolution, I am just saying I am not sure how I would react when faced with a life or death situation.

Are you straw manning me again stating that I am said genocide is justified by self-defense alone?
How many posts have I written on this? Where exactly do you get this nonsense from that I am justifying genocide with self-defense alone? I mentioned evolution form the start here, I never denied the fact of evolution. I find your attempt and the Danmalrk and Keith's accusations disgusting. This is a deliberate attempt to discredit me, to assassinate my character. How is that justified? Do you justify that with your biased?

But I did not state that your said genocide is justified by self-defense alone. You added "alone" yourself. Self-defence is a factor in whether genocide can be justified or not; agree or disagree?

Does this only apply to me, not to you?

To everyone.

Look in the mirror, please. Maybe you can start answering my questions and stop with the inexperienced debate style trying to discredit me, stop straw manning me.

I practice what I preach. Thank you very much. All you questions have been answered, I have been more than polite to you, in an non aggressive way; and have not once did I accused you of strawman or quotemine. But I might start accusing you of trolling very soon.

[Danmark]

....
I don't know what Danmark's stance is exactly, I am pretty sure he is an objectivist. He referred to the Nazis violating objective moral law; but yet he rejects WLC's thesis on moral objectivism. I do know olavisjo and instantc are objectivist, I know their beliefs because of the claims they made....

This raises a good point. I don't think of this in terms of 'objectivist' or 'subjectivist.'
Frequently labels obscure more than they illuminate. I simply believe that we have evolved to appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule' and has appeared in virtually every culture in one form or another for as long as man has been able to record words.

Certainly there are odd laws that are not universal, such as not wearing fabric composed of more than one type of thread, but even the ones we don't understand, or that are incredibly detailed, most likely have at their source at least the outward intention of facilitating these ideas of fairness and reciprocity.

The exception of course is when these laws are written to promote one tribe or group over another. But within the tribe the purpose of the law is fairness and reciprocity; treating others the way we would like to be treated.

[Bust Nak]

This raises a good point. I don't think of this in terms of 'objectivist' or 'subjectivist.'
Frequently labels obscure more than they illuminate. I simply believe that we have evolved to appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule' and has appeared in virtually every culture in one form or another for as long as man has been able to record words.

Well, that certain doesn't help me to pin you down to a label. Both objectivist and subjectivists would agree that there are standards that are close to unversal accross all cultures.

Certainly there are odd laws that are not universal, such as not wearing fabric composed of more than one type of thread, but even the ones we don't understand, or that are incredibly detailed, most likely have at their source at least the outward intention of facilitating these ideas of fairness and reciprocity.

The exception of course is when these laws are written to promote one tribe or group over another. But within the tribe the purpose of the law is fairness and reciprocity; treating others the way we would like to be treated.

Even fairness itself can be contentious. Is everybody getting the same share fair? Is getting a share proportional to effort spent fair? Or is getting a share proportional to needs fair?

But yes, reciprocity is the key, it's simply a matter of who is and who isn't in your group.

[olavisjo]

....
I don't know what Danmark's stance is exactly, I am pretty sure he is an objectivist. He referred to the Nazis violating objective moral law; but yet he rejects WLC's thesis on moral objectivism. I do know olavisjo and instantc are objectivist, I know their beliefs because of the claims they made....

This raises a good point. I don't think of this in terms of 'objectivist' or 'subjectivist.'
Frequently labels obscure more than they illuminate. I simply believe that we have evolved to appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule' and has appeared in virtually every culture in one form or another for as long as man has been able to record words.

Certainly there are odd laws that are not universal, such as not wearing fabric composed of more than one type of thread, but even the ones we don't understand, or that are incredibly detailed, most likely have at their source at least the outward intention of facilitating these ideas of fairness and reciprocity.

The exception of course is when these laws are written to promote one tribe or group over another. But within the tribe the purpose of the law is fairness and reciprocity; treating others the way we would like to be treated.

[JohnA]

You need to decide if you want to quote mind me or not.

I have already decided I don't want to quite mine you.

I already made my position crystal clear.

No, you have not, which is why I am still asking for clarification.

Either you are saying:
I am saying "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide." or
No I am not saying that.

I am saying the latter. You are not saying "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide."

Saying "Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide" clearly implies that it is not justification enough.

How does "could be seen" clearly implies that it is not justification enough? Espically when you said the difference between the words 'seen as' refers to lack of a real world example and speculation.

And I have mentioned what these other things could be: evolution, their fear of being wiped out, etc. I made the point very clear, and have been in this thread.

Right, which is why I didn't claim you said anything like "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide."

It is only people like you that are attempting to straw man me. Danmark and Keith did straw man.

That's an accusation you cannot back up.

I asked you to send me the quote where I said that ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide. You have not done this, have you?

I wrote "Can you do this, without quote mining"?

Correct, and I don't have to back up a claim I didn't make.

And above you are trying to say you can not quote mind me, but you can if you use the words "could be seen". The way I read your above response now is that you are saying that if you could somehow bend this "could be seen" into a more direct "is seen" then you would.

I don't need to bend anything because I said "could be seen," I never said "is seen."

Consider this sentence from you: "You did say the Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide, and questioned if it was wrong to completely wipe a race out in self-defence. It is not suprising that it could be taken as justistification for genocide. "

That's right, and I have to quotes to back that up. Note the "could be seen" here.

The way I read this before (and still do) is that you have taken this "could be seen" and interpret it (without surprise) as ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide.

Then you are mistaken. Note that unlike you, I am not jumping to an accusation of dishonesty.

That is your interpretation not mine. I am asking you to clarify this, and you are dodging my question.

Incorrect, that is your interpretation of interpretation, not mine. I answered you precisely. Let me repeat it here: I didn't claim you said "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide."

So, I take it you are not getting this money that I offered.

Correct. I will not.

Could you at least take your accusation back?

The only accusation I made, is you were too aggressive and sensitive in accusating others for trolling you. So no, I will not be taking those accusation back.

Also, you still have not answered me:
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here or accuse me of. Can you be clear here please?

I am trying to saying what you said could be taken as justistification for genocide. I am accusing you of being aggressive and sensitive in accusating others for trolling you.

I wrote: "Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me" in response to where you ADMITTED that one could deduce a quote mine --- your words "You did say the Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide, and questioned if it was wrong to completely wipe a race out in self-defence. It is not suprising that it could be taken as justistification for genocide. "

I wasn't deducing that it was a quote mine at all, I am saying you were clear enough and it CAN be takening as justistification for genocide without quote mining you.

The way I read this is that you (Bust Nak) can take this "could be seen" and interpret it as ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide.

Then you are mistaken, I meant nothing of the sort. Again I can point out misunderstanding without an accusation of dishonesty.

And I wrote also "I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining. " An attempt, you have not been successful as yet. But I can see you are trying, but you are also not trying as you will be guilty of straw man fallacy. That is an awkward position that you got yourself in.

But I haven't quote mined you once.

So, can you please point out where I accused you of QUOTE MINING. Or apologize for this second false accusation.

I did say: " I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining. "
Referring to the thinking part in "racism" stuff.

And I did say: "You are straw manning me again. "
But that was referring to your interpretation of objective morals and my "thinking part".

How exactly is "Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me" or "I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining" not accusations of quote mining?

I am not the one that made his claims. He said that this god does not exist and that free will does not exist...

Forget it, I have enough to deal with here without dealing with your past history with Danmark.

The accusation is that you are attention to straw man me. I think you are right, it is inaccurate. You did straw man me.

You wrote:
"Right, so there is no such thing as objective moral value since value are always subjective. You are sure there is no objective moral laws but not sure on objective morals, so what is the difference between objective morals and objective moral laws? "

I interpret it as:
"You are sure there is no objective moral laws but not sure on objective morals" = straw man
"so what is the difference between objective morals and objective moral laws" = attempting to justify your straw man via clarification request.

You could say that I am wrong here (my interpretation of your words), but I do have a justification for my claim -> you can not deny that.

Inaccuracies are inaccuracies, not the same thing as a strawman. Strawman is a fallacy where one attacks an mispresentation. I am still trying to understanding your stance. Other than defending against the accusation of strawman or quotemine. I haven't attacked any argument of yours.

Is this not what history says?
It also depends of how you define race. You could deny history, that people are tribal, if you want to as well.

Sure, if you do not have a democratic process, then a dictator may tell people what is right and wrong. If you have a process where you discuss it, in the public square, weighting up pros and cons, and offering the public itself a say, then it can be seen as convincing other people by figuring out it is wrong (i.e. it has consequences that are not conducive to minimize suffering in and of a population).

I would say they were deciding the law via a democratic process, not whether racism was right or wrong. The same goes for a dictator, he tells people the law, he does not tell people what is wrong or wrong. While linked, I do not equate what is illegal with what is wrong.

Btw, I think a capitalistic democracy has its own issues - but that is not for discussion now.

Sure.

I agree, it is wrong.

And I'm not happy with your answer to WHY - saying you like something does not make it wrong. I do not like eating cake, that doe snot mean eating cake is wrong for everyone.

Only because your dislike for cake, is nothing compared to my dislike for apartheid.

Why do you not like what they are doing?
Who are they? Can you be more clear here? I can only take your own word and hope you are not excused from it : "Well I still don't understand you stance fully, you should spend more time in explaining it. There is a difference between misunderstanding you and strawmaning you. The first is a mistake, the latter malicious. "

Lots of reasons why I do not like what they are doing, I think I could sum it up with I don't like seeing people suffer. But then you can ask me "Why do you not like seeing people suffer?" I could point out I am empathic and when other people suffer, I suffer too. Then you could ask me "what makes suffering wrong?" as so on for each and every reason I give until I have no answer. So I am skipping all the intermediate steps straight to the "I just don't! Ok?" I am a moral subjectivist - they are wrong because in my opinion, they are wrong.

Some people think apartheid is only possible to be one way. So, they refuse to answer if it is wrong both ways because they deny that it can be both ways.

It's understandable, they see it as pay back for all the harm apartheid have done, as revenge. But if you ask them in isolation, is racism on whites as wrong as racism on blacks, they should have no problem telling you it's the same either way round.

I am not sure I understand your question. The grammar seems strange.
Value are subjective, always. Your value of time is different to mine, etc. Therefore, "Objective moral values" does not make sense. The value of "objective morals" makes no sense either as you have to define objective morals first and convince me there is an objective to the morals.
"Objective moral laws" does not make sense either as I explained why not.

I said there is no such thing as 'objective moral values' and you seem to be disagreeing with me for the reason that 'objective moral values' does not make any sense. If I say there is no such thing as 'married bachelors' would you agree or disargee with me? Is there a difference between saying "there is no such thing" and "such a thing makes no sense?"

Am not sure what you are saying here.

I am making a general point that moral objectivists can save themselves the trouble of having to prove their point by outright stating that they accept "murder is wrong" as self-evidently true. The moment they try to justisify it as the logical conclusion from other premises, they open cans of philosophy worms.

Are you claiming that Danmark is an Objectivist? How do you know that? I do not understand how people can claim to know to believe other people's beliefs. Danmark seems to KNOW my beliefs, and also the beliefs of instantc. How do people do this? Is this something from evolution too? I do not have this ability to know other people's beliefs. I ask them to state it. Can you please tell me how you this other people's beliefs? Maybe you know how Danmark also knows other people's beliefs.
Danmark refuses to defend it. I asked him how he knows that this illogical 'objective moral laws' exist, and he could not tell me, or refuses to tell me.

I don't know what Danmark's stance is exactly, I am pretty sure he is an objectivist. He referred to the Nazis violating objective moral law; but yet he rejects WLC's thesis on moral objectivism. I do know olavisjo and instantc are objectivist, I know their beliefs becuase of the claims they made.

Futhermore, there is no such thing as an Objectivist, not a pure one anyway. Philosophers define it different and each have their own opinion - they can not agree on the definition, nor produce a person that fits any definition exactly. And I can probably guess that no such person exist that fits this philosophical box 100%. Also, philosophy can not prove / disprove anything (like science) so, Objectivism can not be true. Defining it as true does not mean it is.

Also, even if I were a Relativist (whatever that is), what gives Danmark the right to insult me about it? What makes 'his' Objectivism' better than "Relativism"?

I know this is philosophy woo whoo, but I am sure you get my point.

Sure. Definitions changes and not everyone agree on the same definitions.

But you are now straw manning me again. I explained this already (see above). You have missed the next bit of my writing where I said that if you want to call this "something from evolution" objective morals then you can, saying that I then agree that "objective morals" exists.

I can see you are trying to be fair, but I can see biased. And I can guess why there is a biased.

But my point was, do YOU want to call this "something from evolution" objective morals? You have been telling me, you are not sure if you would. How am I misrepresenting your position?

And you have not answered my questions:

We got that (ethics and empathy) from evolution. If you want to call that objective then yes be my guess. There is something that we got from evolution, or something that evolved.
Do you agree?
What is your definition of objective morals? Do they exist, can not back it up with evidence and a peer reviewed scientific journal?

Can you please answer the above? Or is your biased being forced onto me and I am the only one here under instigation?

But I did answer you, directly, you just missed it - let me repeat my answers:
I do agree, and I don't want to call that objective.

By objective morals, I mean moral that are independent from any agency/mind. They do not exist and as such there is no evidence for it in peer reviewed scientific journal or otherwise.

No. "morals" above is "ethics and empathy" - my understanding of it.
Evolution gave us (human animal) and some other animals (I can not speak for all animals as I do not have these type insights to make blanked statements like Danmark can make without giving evidence) - something to maximize survival and minimize extinction. Evolution is the source of it. If you want to call this "something = objective morals" then YOU can claim it. But I do say there is something that we got from evolution, and it has to so with our ethics and empathy within a species to survive, but not across species (because life eats life).
So, if is one says "objective morals" is the same as, it entails, part of, consist of "something from evolution" within the human animal species - then I agree, since it is merely linguistics.
So, if is one says "objective morals" is exactly equal to "something from evolution" for all life - then I disagree. I want evidence to convince me. tell me what exactly this something from evolution is. Tell me how you can take that and say it is objective morals, especially if you have not even defined objective morals.

I am a moral subjectivist, a subset of moral relativists. There is no such thing as objective morals.

Where did I say or imply that genocide can be justified as self defence? Are you ATTEMPTING at straw manning me again?

That would be when you said "Genocide is against law and international law (and UN protects it).

The Nazi's may not have had this genocide law.
The Nazi's may have thought that these group of Jews wanted to destroy them or the world.

So, there are reasons why genocide would be seen as 'not wrong'"

"Seen as" can refer to the lack of an real world example and also to speculation, more justification needed, can be wrongly interpreted, etc.

Which is why I asked you what you meant by "seen as not wrong." And you told me you use the words to refer to the lack of an real world example and also to speculation. "More justification needed, can be wrongly interpreted" was not mentioned until now. So I ask you again, what did you mean when you said genocide would be seen as not wrong?

I already covered this genocide thing multiple times. I can not explain to you how exactly this "ethics and empathy from evolution that seems to be in place for humans - evolved or not" works or what it is. Your keep on trying to extract bits of my words to try and make me agree to things that I did not say, even when I have explained it earlier. It's getting a bit boring. They say that people that are not experienced at debate are the ones that debate sentence by sentence. I think this is what is happening here, and that is why you are trying to be fair, but suspect your biased is crowding it.

I am not even debating you, I am still trying to understand what your stance is. You are not sure if that something evolution gave you is objective or not. You deny the existence of objective moral law, yet you reject the idea that morality is a matter of opinion.

As for debating styles. I don't debate sentence by sentence. I debate point by point. And if someone inexperienced can poke holes in a post by debating it sentence by sentence, all it says is one needs to construct their posts better so that their opponent can't debate it sentence by sentence.

This just shows me that you are in agreement with me. You are not completely sure what this "ethics and empathy from evolution that seems to be in place for humans - evolved or not" is.
If you did, then you would not use words such as "I am not sure about". You would be sure.

We are making progress.

I am sure morality is the product of evolution, I am just saying I am not sure how I would react when faced with a life or death situation.

Are you straw manning me again stating that I am said genocide is justified by self-defense alone?
How many posts have I written on this? Where exactly do you get this nonsense from that I am justifying genocide with self-defense alone? I mentioned evolution form the start here, I never denied the fact of evolution. I find your attempt and the Danmalrk and Keith's accusations disgusting. This is a deliberate attempt to discredit me, to assassinate my character. How is that justified? Do you justify that with your biased?

But I did not state that your said genocide is justified by self-defense alone. You added "alone" yourself. Self-defence is a factor in whether genocide can be justified or not; agree or disagree?

Does this only apply to me, not to you?

To everyone.

Look in the mirror, please. Maybe you can start answering my questions and stop with the inexperienced debate style trying to discredit me, stop straw manning me.

I practice what I preach. Thank you very much. All you questions have been answered, I have been more than polite to you, in an non aggressive way; and have not once did I accused you of strawman or quotemine. But I might start accusing you of trolling very soon.

He has not answered my questions. Am not sure how this can continue with this amateurish style of debating. I would call this one-sided as well: I HAVE to answer questions, but my opponent DOES NOT, his inconsistencies/fallacies are acceptable to him, but I'm being inconsistent when I do not accept his inconsistencies/fallacies.

I will point out only a few inconsistencies from my opponent to back up my assertions above:

He wrote:

"How does "could be seen" clearly implies that it is not justification enough?"
"I don't need to bend anything because I said "could be seen," I never said "is seen." "
"That's right, and I have to quotes to back that up. Note the "could be seen" here. "

So, when I use "could seen" I have to back it up. And even when I do, it is still not enough.
However, my opponent can just use "could be seen" without any backing up because it is his back up. That is inconsistent, and he refuses to answer the question.


He wrote:

"I am not jumping to an accusation of dishonesty. "

This is a straw man fallacy. I never accused him of dishonesty. I will once again ask for this quote where I did, and offer another reward if he can produce it. And when he can not, then he will probably deny making this straw man and false accusation.

He wrote:

" I didn't claim you said "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide." "
"You did say the Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide, and questioned if it was wrong to completely wipe a race out in self-defence. It is not suprising that it could be taken as justistification for genocide. "

And I did respond to it: "Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me."
He still writes:

"I am trying to saying what you said could be taken as justistification for genocide. "
"I am saying you were clear enough and it CAN be takening as justistification for genocide"

It seems to me that my opponent can not decide if he is accusing me or not. He jumps back and forth, trying to use linguistics.

And this I do not approve of - this in my books is slander or character assassination:

"The only accusation I made, is you were too aggressive and sensitive"

He wrote:

"How exactly is "Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me" or "I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining" not accusations of quote mining?"

Missing the If. An attempt is not always successful, if it was it would not be called an attempt.

He wrote:

"Inaccuracies are inaccuracies, not the same thing as a strawman"

That is an attempt to redefine straw man, or dodge his fallacy. I do not know which one, as I can not decode linguistics acrobats.


He wrote:

"I haven't attacked any argument of yours. "

But here we are debating. So, he is admitting this is pointless, he has no beef with any of my arguments, all of this is nonsense. So, why waste my time and his time then?

He wrote:

"I would say they were deciding the law via a democratic process, not whether racism was right or wrong. "

So, it is not wrong for me to break the law. OK then.

He wrote:

"I would say they were deciding the law via a democratic process, not whether racism was right or wrong. "

Still REFUSING to answer my question. WHY is apartheid wrong? How can I debate with someone that refuses to answer questions?

He wrote:

"Lots of reasons why I do not like what they are doing, I think I could sum it up with I don't like seeing people suffer. But then you can ask me "Why do you not like seeing people suffer?" I could point out I am empathic and when other people suffer, I suffer too. Then you could ask me "what makes suffering wrong?" as so on for each and every reason I give until I have no answer. So I am skipping all the intermediate steps straight to the "I just don't! Ok?" I am a moral subjectivist - they are wrong because in my opinion, they are wrong. "

So, he can not answer my question. Yet my same answer for this is "I do not understand what evolution gave us, but it did give us something" is not good enough for him. I rest my case.

And here he goes again:

"I said there is no such thing as 'objective moral values'"

But previously he said he does not know why something is wrong, but evolution gave iusand now he claims he KNOWS there is no objective moral values. This is inconsistent. I can not debate someone with this type inconsistencies.


My point has been clear. My opponent is in spin, linguistics and inconsistencies. I think he may be struggling with trying to put me in a philosophical box (relativist, objectivist, subjectivist, whateva) even after he himself admitted that "Definitions changes and not everyone agree on the same definitions."

And here is yet another unanswered question: "What makes 'his' Objectivism' better than "Relativism"? "


And here we have an agreement to my exact same position:

"I do agree, and I don't want to call that objective. "

Yet, he still asks me to explain my position, (even when it seems to be the same as his). So, I need to explain my position X, but he does not need to explain his position X. That is inconsistent.

Yet in the very next sentence he writes:

" By objective morals, I mean moral that are independent from any agency/mind. They do not exist and as such there is no evidence for it in peer reviewed scientific journal or otherwise. "

But he just confirmed that evolution (agency) did give us something.
And he says Objective morals do not exist - but admit that science has no support for this.

This is inconsistent, and contradiction.

He writes:

"You are not sure if that something evolution gave you is objective or not."

Even after I explained it:
No. "morals" above is "ethics and empathy" - my understanding of it.
Evolution gave us (human animal) and some other animals (I can not speak for all animals as I do not have these type insights to make blanked statements like Danmark can make without giving evidence) - something to maximize survival and minimize extinction. Evolution is the source of it. If you want to call this "something = objective morals" then YOU can claim it. But I do say there is something that we got from evolution, and it has to so with our ethics and empathy within a species to survive, but not across species (because life eats life).
So, if one says "objective morals" is the same as, it entails, part of, consist of "something from evolution" within the human animal species - then I agree, since it is merely linguistics.
So, if one says "objective morals" is exactly equal to "something from evolution" for all life - then I disagree. I want evidence to convince me. tell me what exactly this something from evolution is. Tell me how you can take that and say it is objective morals, especially if you have not even defined objective morals.


I can not win. I explain it, by my opponent denies that I did. How is this logical?

He writes:

"You deny the existence of objective moral law, yet you reject the idea that morality is a matter of opinion. "

Even after I said that there is 3 sources of ethics and empathy - 2 of which is opinion referencing the 1st.


He writes:

"As for debating styles. I don't debate sentence by sentence. I debate point by point. And if someone inexperienced can poke holes in a post by debating it sentence by sentence, all it says is one needs to construct their posts better so that their opponent can't debate it sentence by sentence. "

How is it that I can refer to his inconsistencies across sentences, showing how his points are contradictory?


He wrote:

"You got annoyed with people saying you are justifying genocide, then say follow it up by saying it's okay in self defence. "

When I point out his straw man he reply:

"But I did not state that your said genocide is justified by self-defense alone. You added "alone" yourself. Self-defence is a factor in whether genocide can be justified or not; agree or disagree? "

This in inconsistent. You can not say someone is saying X, and then say you are not saying that this someone is saying X.


He wrote:

I practice what I preach. Thank you very much. All you questions have been answered, I have been more than polite to you, in an non aggressive way; and have not once did I accused you of strawman or quotemine. But I might start accusing you of trolling very soon.

No he does do not practice what he preaches. I showed you above why not.
His replies to me is aggressive as he is using inconsistencies to try and straw man me, to discredit me. I find that tactic aggressive and dismissive. Given his stance on "morality" he can not even deny my position.

[JohnA]

This raises a good point. I don't think of this in terms of 'objectivist' or 'subjectivist.'
Frequently labels obscure more than they illuminate. I simply believe that we have evolved to appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule' and has appeared in virtually every culture in one form or another for as long as man has been able to record words.

Well, that certain doesn't help me to pin you down to a label. Both objectivist and subjectivists would agree that there are standards that are close to unversal accross all cultures.

Certainly there are odd laws that are not universal, such as not wearing fabric composed of more than one type of thread, but even the ones we don't understand, or that are incredibly detailed, most likely have at their source at least the outward intention of facilitating these ideas of fairness and reciprocity.

The exception of course is when these laws are written to promote one tribe or group over another. But within the tribe the purpose of the law is fairness and reciprocity; treating others the way we would like to be treated.

Even fairness itself can be contentious. Is everybody getting the same share fair? Is getting a share proportional to effort spent fair? Or is getting a share proportional to needs fair?

But yes, reciprocity is the key, it's simply a matter of who is and who isn't in your group.

I disagree with:
"I simply believe that we have evolved to appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule' and has appeared in virtually every culture in one form or another for as long as man has been able to record words."

That (his belief and the content of the belief) is patently absurdly false.

And the evidence is:
1) Danmark's treatment of me, the way he is employing his tactics to discredit me. Would he enjoy if I used similar tactics on him?

2) Prisons. Why send anyone there, Danmark certainly do not want to go there, even if he breaks the law. Does anybody want to go to prison? How many people did Danmark "indirectly" sent to prison (probably based on false accusations, empty claim and ad hominems)?

[Danmark]

....

And the evidence is:
1) Danmark's treatment of me, the way he is employing his tactics to discredit me. Would he enjoy if I used similar tactics on him?

2) Prisons. Why send anyone there, Danmark certainly do not want to go there, even if he breaks the law. Does anybody want to go to prison? How many people did Danmark "indirectly" sent to prison (probably based on false accusations, empty claim and ad hominems)?

John A, you are right to point out that I fell far below the standard I suggested was universal in human morality by my treatment of you. Please forgive me. Let's move on and focus on the debate itself, rather than personal remarks.

Part of the reason I wanted to respond was to clarify that for over 30 years I have worked to keep people out of prison, rather than to prosecute. I only defend. I'm just not wired to do otherwise.