Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws

[Statler Waldorf]

Ow! The stupid! It burns!

I am trying to cure yours for you, you’re welcome.

OK, Stat, class is in session. Today's lesson is how the symbol "=/=" means "does not equal".

I’ll admit, I have never seen that symbol typed out before, you want to know why? Because it’s wrong. That’s not the proper symbol for typing, you should have used “<>” or “!=”, since you’re using a keyboard. It’s not my fault you did not know that was the wrong symbol. It’s regretful that your ignorance wasted both of our time.

It's the equal sign but with a slash through it. Most of us learned that in grade school math class. Perhaps you just didn't get that far.

No, I think my problem is that I got far beyond that; I know that the typographical symbol is “<>” or “!=”, not whatever garbage you tried using. You should try using whatever you used in an SQL statement sometime and see what you get, that’d be funny.

translates to "subjective morality" does not equal "anything goes and all opinions are equally valid".

Why doesn’t it equal that? According to whom? You?

The "not" is a very important part of that sentence. It's a key word.

A key unsupported assertion maybe.

It's a denial of your assertion of what "subjective morality" means.

An unsupported denial.

OK, so, assuming I have cleared up your confusion, you're going to have to re-write the first 1/2 (that symbol means "half", not 1, 2) of your response to me. You're embarrassing failure to understand a basic math symbol is self-pwnage.

I need to do no such thing, because you have not demonstrated that is not the actual definition of moral subjectivism (assertion is not demonstration), until you do so I am not obligated to do anything.

That's how atheists, humanists and other secularist define morality.

So?

You asked how we can evaluate Russia's new laws as morally wrong. I'm providing a generally-accepted definition among secularists to start with. You must understand what my words mean if you are to understand my argument.

No, I need to only understand what your argument reduces to, absurdity. Why is that the definition? Why can’t Russia adopt their own definition of morality? Why must they follow your poorly stated definition of moral subjectivism?

...or so you should have learned from your self-pwnage earlier.

Yes, I assumed you knew what the “not equal to” symbol was, I should never assume you know anything from here on out or I am in for a waste of my time apparently.

I've already told you. I've listed certain academic philosophies including Rawls, Bentham, J.S. Mill for starters. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Do you have any idea who these people are? Would you understand "Utilitarian principles" or "Veil of Ignorance" if I mentioned them?

You are saying we have rights because philosophers say we have rights? That’s funny. You’re going to have to do better, how are these rights knowable? Where do they come from? And what are they explicitly? You’re going to have to do your own heavy lifting for once.

Then you're a hypocrite.

So? Is it morally wrong to be hypocritical? Why?

Well, don't let me stop you if you wish to wear the label with pride.

So that’s it? I can treat atheists differently than I want to be treated and all I get for it is a silly label? Humanism really does reduce to absurdity.

Ask yourself how you would wish to be treated.

No, you must first demonstrate that I have a moral obligation to treat others how I want to be treated, start there.

Go live by yourself in the wild.

Why am I not allowed to opt out of it and still live where I want? Are you trying to force your morals upon me? I thought that was not allowed?

That was your self-pwnage.

Because you used the wrong symbol genius-boy.

By definition. Again, it's important to define our terms.

By whose definition? Why is that the correct definition?

"Objective" must be, by definition, free of any being's opinions or values. That's what the word means. The will of a god, by definition, represents that god's opinions and values.

No, it’s not free of any being’s opinions, only the being or beings the law is applied to. God’s laws are objective towards mankind.

"Absolute" must be, by definition, universal and not subject to change. A value system that is dependent on a single being's say-so is not, by definition, absolute since that being could change his/her/its mind. Whether or not that being ever exercises that option, the option is still there and so it negates the quality of "absolute". Additionally, since you think your god is above moral judgement, the rules don't apply to him and so it is not universal and therefore not absolute.

Yikes, I thought you were better than this. God’s sense of morality does not change because it derives from His immutable character, so it is absolute. Secondly, you’re conflating moral judgment with moral standards, God is the ultimate standard of morality, so it’s an absurdity to suggest He can be judged, that does not mean that His moral commandments are not objective though.

"external perspective" doth not "objective" make.

According to whom? You?

*Tsk tsk* that was your lesson from your previous schooling. You've obviously not done your homework.

I did learn that apparently there are people who use keyboards to type but do not know how to type all of the correct mathematical symbols on those keyboards, interesting bit of information.

Appealing to an infallible source is a form of deduction, it’s not fallacious; you can laugh all you want but it doesn’t make you any less wrong.

Oh, so it's not circular. It's just that we know Yahweh is good because Yahweh is the standard of what is good.

Yup, that’s how ultimate standards work, for some reason I had in my mind that you were better at all of this than you really are. I guess time has a way of softening such realities. I do remember that you never seemed to properly understand what begging the question was though.

Are there any other mathematical symbols you’d like to know how to correctly type on a keyboard? Free of charge? I am feeling charitable.

As you're the one who seems to think it is possible, yet somehow manages to never once do it, perhaps you should tell me.

But I can and have (with your help of course).

I choose happiness because (with a few special exceptions) people seek happiness in their lives. It is what drives us to improve things.

Why should we choose what people seek in their lives? I am beginning to suspect you’re just making all of this up.

Am I wrong? Do you pursue only things that make you feel unhappy or experience pain?

To suggest that simply because I do something means that’s what I ought to be doing is fallacious.

Let's try to play this game again. Prove that your standard of morality is not arbitrary. Put some clothes on those assertions. So far, all you've proven is that you're one of the more persistently hypocritical frauds on this forum.

Oh no! There’s that label again! Apparently that’s the worst an atheist can call someone. I already have demonstrated it, with your help you helped me demonstrate that Yahweh exists, and if Yahweh exists then morality is objective and independent of man’s will. Thanks by the way.