Henry, the fact that you included more than 1 example of a subjective apples/oranges in that inane list shows that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The fact that you included half a dozen of them before getting to something that can be verified scientifically shows that your views have caused you to regress to somewhere I think I recall being when I was in about second grade. I mean, that's Ray Comfort level speak-n'-spell tactics you're smearing on the wall in your own excrement. Clean that shit up and come back when you learn something coherent.

(June 28, 2017 at 9:36 am)Astonished Wrote: Henry, the fact that you included more than 1 example of a subjective apples/oranges in that inane list shows that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The fact that you included half a dozen of them before getting to something that can be verified scientifically shows that your views have caused you to regress to somewhere I think I recall being when I was in about second grade. I mean, that's Ray Comfort level speak-n'-spell tactics you're smearing on the wall in your own excrement. Clean that shit up and come back when you learn something coherent.

Was this supposed to be a rebuttal?

What is there to rebut, Henry?

If a person has or thinks their morality is meaningfully subjective, then what's the problem?  That they can't, then, think that something is wrong?  They obviously can and do.  That they can't tell another person that what they think is right..is wrong?  They obviously can and do.  I know, you think it's "attached to a wider belief-set" -which ofc is christer code for non-belief, but it probably isn't eh?  It's not as if an atheist has to hold the position that morality is subjective - after all, I don't

Is the problem, more accurately stated, that -you- couldn't figure out how to make sense of-your- life..if you didn't have what you felt to be an objective morality, from god?  That you..apart from whatever ghostly list you have, can't tell right from wrong?

Well, they aren't you, they don't have your problems, they can tell right from wrong, all by their one-sies.  That you can't understand how they do that is probably why you have your problems.  Huh.

Maybe this deficiency is attached to your "wider belief-set".

I'm always amazed when someone insists morality *must* be objective. If you're in a sane and decent culture, the collective subjective morality of the citizenry will tend to produce positive results. If your culture is neither sane nor decent, you have bigger problems than whether or not something is considered moral.

Human instinct alone appears to be capable of producing the moral goods, as it were.  Objective moral frameworks, subjective moral frameworks, the collective opinions of my culture; are these things the reason I don't rape?

Nope.  I just don't want to. Probably born that way. I seriously doubt that my mind is even -subconsciously- filled with rape calculus all day erryday.

Speaking of. Those rapists? Do they not have a subjective or objective moral framework? Are they unaware of the collective opinion of their society that tells them not to rape? No, and no. They want to, they're rapists.

Sigh all those words and you still have not escaped my objection or the dilemma .You essentially just restated it as if you had . Not surprising because you can't escape it . Gods nature can only be  asserted as good as can any moral attribute assigned to him by men.

As for your silly objection nope one can say morality is objective and still reject wider idea's and you last statement is an argument from motivation.

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: [quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1575156' dateline='1498496953']


I would definitely not approve of your hobby and in my view it would be wrong. Indeed society in general views these things as being wrong but it is nor true for all societies at all times. This is why an evolving morality is superior to the ones set down eons ago in harsher societies. Societies were you would send your dughters to be raped rather than offend a male guest. Societies were slavery was A ok.
Morality shifts.
At the moment its shifting for the better. 

Our society accepts being gay as not immoral and that is better we are more tolerant of other faiths or no faiths, better.

[quote='Little Henry' pid='1576256' dateline='1498636348']
A few problems here. Wrong according to what? Your opinion?

Now your getting it, Yes my opinion

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: Thats like you and i playing a game of tennis with no lines on the floor and as soon as the ball lands you scream that it is out. Well, no lines exist on the court then how can it be out? Essentially you are comparing where the ball landed against some imaginary line you created in your head. Exactly the same if you say OM does not exist then say such acts like rape are wrong. Well, you are comparing it against some imaginary line in your head.

You are talking about rules. Rules are set by society. For example in Saudi Arabia they will arrest a woman for not having her head covered or walking without a male. That is the rules and morality of their society.

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: Societies? Which societies? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea?

Yep those sorts of things.

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: Exactly...and it is the ONLY reason why something is right or wrong because you can compare it against it.

Can we have that again in English! Thanks awfully.

(June 26, 2017 at 1:09 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I think it is morally wrong to condemn homosexuality, that is subjective opinion. If morals were objective everyone would think it immoral to condemn homosexuals, but they don't do they!
[quote='Little Henry' pid='1576256' dateline='1498636348']

How can something be wrong if it is subjective?

Because in my opinion it is wrong.

I also think that pineapple on pizza is an abomination.

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: Is genocide wrong?

Funnily enough the bible says no.
But then I have superior morals to the Abrahamic god.

(June 28, 2017 at 1:20 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote:

(June 26, 2017 at 1:09 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I would definitely not approve of your hobby and in my view it would be wrong. Indeed society in general views these things as being wrong but it is nor true for all societies at all times. This is why an evolving morality is superior to the ones set down eons ago in harsher societies. Societies were you would send your dughters to be raped rather than offend a male guest. Societies were slavery was A ok.
Morality shifts.
At the moment its shifting for the better. 

Our society accepts being gay as not immoral and that is better we are more tolerant of other faiths or no faiths, better.

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: A few problems here. Wrong according to what? Your opinion?

Now your getting it, Yes my opinion

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: Thats like you and i playing a game of tennis with no lines on the floor and as soon as the ball lands you scream that it is out. Well, no lines exist on the court then how can it be out? Essentially you are comparing where the ball landed against some imaginary line you created in your head. Exactly the same if you say OM does not exist then say such acts like rape are wrong. Well, you are comparing it against some imaginary line in your head.

You are talking about rules. Rules are set by society. For example in Saudi Arabia they will arrest a woman for not having her head covered or walking without a male. That is the rules and morality of their society.

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: Societies? Which societies? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea?

Yep those sorts of things.

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: Exactly...and it is the ONLY reason why something is right or wrong because you can compare it against it.

Can we have that again in English! Thanks awfully.

(June 26, 2017 at 1:09 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I think it is morally wrong to condemn homosexuality, that is subjective opinion. If morals were objective everyone would think it immoral to condemn homosexuals, but they don't do they!

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: How can something be wrong if it is subjective?

Because in my opinion it is wrong.

I also think that pineapple on pizza is an abomination.

(June 28, 2017 at 3:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: Is genocide wrong?

Funnily enough the bible says no.
But then I have superior morals to the Abrahamic god.

Better yet, is it ALWAYS wrong? If you're wiping out an incurable group suffering from an infectious zombie-like plague that would otherwise doom the rest of the planet, well, that's worth debating at least. 'Cause apparently Have It Yahweh doesn't understand distinctions like that when handing down absolute commandments; or irony when he himself commits acts he forbids us to (unless it suits his mood and he tells us to go nuts.)

I believe that was the case "god" made when he flooded the earth™.

(June 28, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I believe that was the case "god" made when he flooded the earth™.

So those poor schmucks didn't receive (or presumably deserve) the same mercy as everyone after Jeebus because they were unlucky enough to be arbitrarily born at the wrong time. Yeah, goddy sure knows what he's doing up there.