(July 10, 2013 at 11:59 am)Inigo Wrote: If I say that by 'morality' I am referring to instructions and favourings that have inescapable rational authority you know what I mean by the term 'morality' don't you? If you mean something else by the term, great! But I mean what I've just told you I mean. I don't care what YOU mean by it. If you don't have the concept, you don't have the concept.
I also know what morality actually means. So, when I see you using the label wrongly in an attempt to confuse or trick - of course I'm going to point it out. And keep pointing it out. I don't go around asking what you mean by the term or what I mean by the term - I find out what the term actually means and use it that way because that is required for effective communication. And now, as it happens, I do have the concept of gmorality - I just don't confuse it with morality, like you do.
(July 10, 2013 at 11:59 am)Inigo Wrote: I am then analysing the concept and showing that it presupposes a god.
You mean your concept of gmorality? Sure.
(July 10, 2013 at 11:59 am)Inigo Wrote: Here is an analogy. I am taking something - say, some strawberry jam - and I am trying to figure out what it is in by analysing it.
If you come along and say 'your analysis is rubbish. Marmalade contains oranges' my reply will be 'so? I am analysing strawberry jam. go away!'.
Except, within this analogy, what you have is actually marmalade and you are calling it strawberry jam. You keep repeating that what you have is strawberry jam, when it is actually marmalade and then keep coming to the conclusion that "strawberry jam contains oranges". Why do you think I won't argue against this and simply go away?
(July 10, 2013 at 11:59 am)Inigo Wrote: Now, if you have a problem with my concept you can just go away. I'm not interested in debating with people who don't have the relevant concept. What's the point? they're just be talking past me.
The point is to make everyone aware of this shabby attempt at deception so that no one is even mistakenly convinced by it. If after 48 pages you keep repeating that "as we've established, morality is rationally inescapable" and a single member - due to lack of any challenge to the statement - happens to believe it, never realizing that you started by redefining morality - that wouldn't sit well with me at all. That is why I won't go away and keep pointing out your errors over and over again.
Also, because I like it.