Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[The Grand Nudger]

There doesn't need to be any other than. If that were the only thing that you see happening in nature that you took moral issue with (which I highly doubt), that would be an example of something you find amiss in nature.

The extent to which you believe that it is "against natural law" is a thematic expression of how you perceive those acts. What you mean to say, I think, is that you think those people are wrong. Well..there you are, people doing it wrong in nature. Whatever else it may be, it's perfectly natural for human beings to do that.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You are (deliberately, I think) evading the point. You claimed earlier that morality does not change, I have shown that it does. The societies mentioned above practiced infanticide and held it up in the case of deformed, sickly or ‘wrong’ sex newborns as a moral good. Those societies no longer do so. Therefore, this is evidence of moral change.

And it doesn’t matter if it was most societies or only a handful. It doesn’t alter the fact that the morality of killing newborns has changed.

I think you’re wrong when you say it was ‘generally’ done for economic reasons, but let’s say you’re right. It STILL wouldn’t alter the changed morality regarding infanticide, since a parent killing a child today because of scarce resources would be condemned morally as well as legally.

Boru

You have not shown morality changing. You have shown changes that would effect the decision to use child sacrifice or not.

Today, we have ton's of social safety nets so to compare times is ridiculous.

If anyone is ignoring points, it is not me. 

Regards
DL

---

You appear to find something amiss in nature.....what else is the opq about?

No to your first. 

To your second, the OP is about loyalty to the American oath that many seem to break when preaching against it's moral equality statements.

Where do I show something amiss with nature, other than referring to the religious that preach against both natural law and our secular law.

Regards
DL

Now you’re just being laughably obtuse. 

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

There's the outside possibility that GIA has erected a monument to antithesis in his moral schema - responding to a potential claim that homosexuality is against so called natural law as a matter of moral concern with the notion that homosexuality is..instead... a part of that same idea of natural law.

We can make any given thing good or bad by referring to a "natural law" - because there's no shortage of different outcomes for similar actions in nature. Never considering that the natural law part was the part where they began to go awry, not the homosex, his position becomes equivalent to their own and self referentially false for all of the same reasons.

[Greatest I am]

There doesn't need to be any other than.  If that were the only thing that you see happening in nature that you took moral issue with (which I highly doubt), that would be an example of something you find amiss in nature.

The extent to which you believe that it is "against natural law" is a thematic expression of how you perceive those acts.  What you mean to say, I think, is that you think those people are wrong.  Well..there you are, people doing it wrong in nature.  Whatever else it may be, it's perfectly natural for human beings to do that.

Nature is fine. People are fucked.

I have no idea what your "There doesn't need to be any other than. " means.

Men and and women failing to protect their children from discrimination without a just cause, or adding to it the way Christians do, is hardly the best form of natural.

Regards
DL

---

There's the outside possibility that GIA has erected a monument to antithesis in his moral schema - responding to a potential claim that homosexuality is against so called natural law as a matter of moral concern with the notion that homosexuality is..instead... a part of that same idea of natural law.

We can make any given thing good or bad by referring to a "natural law" - because there's no shortage of different outcomes for similar actions in nature.  Never considering that the natural law part was the part where they began to go awry, not the homosex, his position becomes equivalent to their own and self referentially false for all of the same reasons.

Impressive. Your only goal. 

Now try English.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

There doesn't need to be any other than.  If that were the only thing that you see happening in nature that you took moral issue with (which I highly doubt), that would be an example of something you find amiss in nature.

The extent to which you believe that it is "against natural law" is a thematic expression of how you perceive those acts.  What you mean to say, I think, is that you think those people are wrong.  Well..there you are, people doing it wrong in nature.  Whatever else it may be, it's perfectly natural for human beings to do that.

Nature is fine. People are fucked.

I have no idea what your "There doesn't need to be any other than. " means.

Men and and women failing to protect their children from discrimination without a just cause, or adding to it the way Christians do, is hardly the best form of natural.

Seems to me that the word best is doing more lifting than the word natural - all of it, in fact.

We can plainly see that it's natural for people to do things which neither you, nor I, nor the postman would describe as the best things to do.  This is something that you see amiss, in nature, in humans.  You take moral issue with it.  Correct?

Now try English.

I'm going to interpret this as a request to rephrase.

People who claim that homosexuality is bad, bad defined as unnatural things, put themselves in a bind.  The same bind that you're in by defining natural as good, and then referring to some thing that they're doing as bad.    

Each of you makes a claim to fact which cannot be true if either of your complaints about what other people are doing are true.  Each of you makes a claim to moral state by moral facts which cannot be true if those moral facts are true.  

This is what it means for a thing to be self referentially false.  That if any given part of the statement were true, the rest couldn't be true.

[Greatest I am]

Nature is fine. People are fucked.

I have no idea what your "There doesn't need to be any other than. " means.

Men and and women failing to protect their children from discrimination without a just cause, or adding to it the way Christians do, is hardly the best form of natural.

Seems to me that the word best is doing more lifting than the word natural - all of it, in fact.

We can plainly see that it's natural for people to do things which neither you, nor I, nor the postman would describe as the best things to do.  This is something that you see amiss, in nature, in humans.  You take moral issue with it.  Correct?

Now try English.

I'm going to interpret this as a request to rephrase.

People who claim that homosexuality is bad, bad defined as unnatural things, put themselves in a bind.  The same bind that you're in by defining natural as good, and then referring to some thing that they're doing as bad.    

Each of you makes a claim to fact which cannot be true if either of your complaints about what other people are doing are true.  Each of you makes a claim to moral state by moral facts which cannot be true if those moral facts are true.  

This is what it means for a thing to be self referentially false.  That if any given part of the statement were true, the rest couldn't be true.

I define nature as mostly good, but in our dualistic universe, I have to look for it's other side of that coin as well. Like our evolution, it is mostly good with a touch of evil. I doubt that either of us would want to rid the world of either side.

As to your self referentially false statement, I do not see the sense in your reason for naming it so.

I would think the reverse true.

Why would a true fact annul a true moral state?

Give a specific example. You know we get nowhere when you go too generic.

KIS is good.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

I define nature as mostly good, but in our dualistic universe, I have to look for it's other side of that coin as well. Like our evolution, it is mostly good with a touch of evil. I doubt that either of us would want to rid the world of either side.

That wasn't the impression I got before, but it's a necessary bit of data to understand what you mean, for sure.

As to your self referentially false statement, I do not see the sense in your reason for naming it so.

I would think the reverse true.

Why would a true fact annul a true moral state?

Give a specific example. You know we get nowhere when you go too generic.

I gave you the specific examples of both the types of claims you were objecting to, and your own objection to those claims, and explained their equivalence, and explained what a self referentially false statement was twice.  I doubt the third time will be the charm.   

With revisions, though, we've finally achieved the point of even having asked you.  You don't actually think that nature has determined what's best for us or that we can't second guess nature or that a thing being natural is the same as a thing being good.  

You think that some of the natural things that some of us do are bad, and that nature cannot be relied upon to determine what is best for us in those cases.  That you have a moral issue with nature in at least as many instances as there are bad ideas in humans.  

Do we have that correct now, or closer to correct?

[Greatest I am]

I define nature as mostly good, but in our dualistic universe, I have to look for it's other side of that coin as well. Like our evolution, it is mostly good with a touch of evil. I doubt that either of us would want to rid the world of either side.

That wasn't the impression I got before, but it's a necessary bit of data to understand what you mean, for sure.

As to your self referentially false statement, I do not see the sense in your reason for naming it so.

I would think the reverse true.

Why would a true fact annul a true moral state?

Give a specific example. You know we get nowhere when you go too generic.

I gave you the specific examples of both the types of claims you were objecting to, and your own objection to those claims, and explained their equivalence, and explained what a self referentially false statement was twice.  I doubt the third time will be the charm.   

With revisions, though, we've finally achieved the point of even having asked you.  You don't actually think that nature has determined what's best for us or that we can't second guess nature or that a thing being natural is the same as a thing being good.  

You think that some of the natural things that some of us do are bad, and that nature cannot be relied upon to determine what is best for us in those cases.  That you have a moral issue with nature in at least as many instances as there are bad ideas in humans.  

Do we have that correct now, or closer to correct?

Sorry, no. It is complicated though.

"You don't actually think that nature has determined what's best for us ".

I do. If not nature, then what?

Nature always creates for the best possible end and I have no complaints on that. The only evil in this will be felt by those I compete against who lose or myself if they win. In a sense this is not true given that I debate to win, while hopping to lose. Winning gives me nothing. Losing improves me.

"we can't second guess nature "

Sure we can. That does not mean we can do better than nature. There might be some areas, like us being less innovative than chimps when we are young. I think our mimicking, a requirement for us for sure is good, but we are too strong in it for innovation, generally. We do have some that think out of the box and they are valued more than most.

I would not say I have a moral problem with nature, as morals are thoughts, and nature does not think. All I question is the method used.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry, no. It is complicated though.

"You don't actually think that nature has determined what's best for us ".

I do. If not nature, then what?

This part isn't actually that complicated.  If the fairies didn't leave this flying carpet under my bed, then who did?  

Perhaps, no one and nothing have determined what's best for us - and the task of approximating whatever that may be, if there is such a thing, is left to agents which are at least capable of apprehending and assessing the subject.

"Nature" is no such agent - as you note further down in your own response.  

Nature always creates for the best possible end and I have no complaints on that. The only evil in this will be felt by those I compete against who lose or myself if they win. In a sense this is not true given that I debate to win, while hopping to lose. Winning gives me nothing. Losing improves me.

Evidently, it does not - as you take moral issue with at least some of natures products.

Conceptually, it cannot- as you note further down in your own response.

"we can't second guess nature "

Sure we can. That does not mean we can do better than nature. There might be some areas, like us being less innovative than chimps when we are young. I think our mimicking, a requirement for us for sure is good, but we are too strong in it for innovation, generally. We do have some that think out of the box and they are valued more than most.

I agree, we can, and this stands in stark contrast to your earlier claim that we cannot.  

I would not say I have a moral problem with nature, as morals are thoughts, and nature does not think. All I question is the method used.

Regards
DL

You already have said it, more than once, and in more than one way.  This is why I assume it's a problem of communication.  We're not having an argument about our respective positions, you're misrepresenting your own position, and I'm trying to help you improve on that.

[Greatest I am]

"Perhaps, no one and nothing have determined what's best for us"

I am a product of my DNA and nature. So is everyone and anything that has DNA or life.

DNA is from nature, and we all know that it determines our chemistry and mood, and those determine what we think is best at any given point in time.

"I agree, we can, and this stands in stark contrast to your earlier claim that we cannot."

I thought I added that some few of us are indeed innovators. If not, please accept my amendment.

One might say that many are called but few hear it. Sounds too religious though.

Regards
DL