Morality without God

[vulcanlogician]

Analytic naturalists also think that moral whatsits are like centimeters or inches.  Exactly like them.

I'm not familiar. So then what separates Analytic Naturalists from Plato or G.E. Moore who say "goodness is a concept that can (and must be?) understood on its own. And once you understand goodness itself, THEN you make moral judgments about reality in relation to that concept.

I guess what I'm asking is, what makes an analytic naturalist a naturalist?

[The Grand Nudger]

The belief that at least some moral claims are synonymous with claims in the natural sciences.
(it's onboard with the notion of a priori moral knowledge)

Abaddons comment from earlier will do double duty here.

Once that decision is made, it is entirely possible to make objective assessments as to whether or not any given action meets the goal of being congruent with well being and fluorishing

An analytic naturalist can say essentially the same thing - but considers it to be a matter of apprehension rather than decision or empirical observation.

[Angrboda]

What is a rape victim guilty of?

In a capital murder conviction a person has been found guilty of a murder by a jury and has been sentenced to death for their actions.  My stance on the death penalty has been changing over the last few years due to the advancements in science in general and forensics specifically.  Too many people have been exonerated who would have died had these changes in knowledge not come to light.

Again, I ask, what is a rape victim guilty of?

Is that addressed to me?

As for me issuing a threat...no, I just let it be known that this discussion turned to rape and it's being watched.

You're full of shit. You identified a behavior and a consequence for engaging in that behavior, rhetorically asking not to go there. I'll go there if I damn well please and there ain't fuckall that you can do about it as neither discussing rape nor engaging in rape apologetics are against the rules. And now you tell me that the thread is being watched. I presume that you mean that you will be watching this discussion which prompts several questions that I would like answered. A) What are you watching for? and B) What do you intend to do once you see it? As far as I can see, there is nothing inherent in a discussion of rape or engaging in rape apologetics which would authorize you to do anything that any other member is not capable of doing. Are we going to now be spammed with warnings from you in every discussion that you are watching that discussion as well? Watch all you like, but as far as I can see you've threatened me not once but twice with the oh so subtle implication that you would be monitoring my behavior pending taking action against me using your privileges as a staff member for discussing rape in a way that you don't find agreeable. If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that you are going to watch the discussion just like any other interested member might watch the discussion, then I have to ask what exactly is noteworthy about that?

When you tell me that I shouldn't participate in a thread because you don't like what I said or how I said it, you are close to breaking the rule regarding attempting to limit participation.

So, take a breath and calm down a little.

When I do such a thing, then a warning might be appropriate. Since I have done no such thing, your suggestion that I have is pure slander.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that you have few scruples regarding lying and will likely tell any lie under the sun in order to more efficiently extricate yourself from any bind.

[arewethereyet]

What is a rape victim guilty of?

In a capital murder conviction a person has been found guilty of a murder by a jury and has been sentenced to death for their actions.  My stance on the death penalty has been changing over the last few years due to the advancements in science in general and forensics specifically.  Too many people have been exonerated who would have died had these changes in knowledge not come to light.

Again, I ask, what is a rape victim guilty of?

Is that addressed to me?

As for me issuing a threat...no, I just let it be known that this discussion turned to rape and it's being watched.

You're full of shit.  You identified a behavior and a consequence for engaging in that behavior, rhetorically asking not to go there.  I'll go there if I damn well please and there ain't fuckall that you can do about it as neither discussing rape nor engaging in rape apologetics are against the rules.  And now you tell me that the thread is being watched.  I presume that you mean that you will be watching this discussion which prompts several questions that I would like answered.  A) What are you watching for?  and B) What do you intend to do once you see it?  As far as I can see, there is nothing inherent in a discussion of rape or engaging in rape apologetics which would authorize you to do anything that any other member is not capable of doing.  Are we going to now be spammed with warnings from you in every discussion that you are watching that discussion as well?  Watch all you like, but as far as I can see you've threatened me not once but twice with the oh so subtle implication that you would be monitoring my behavior pending taking action against me using your privileges as a staff member for discussing rape in a way that you don't find agreeable.  If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that you are going to watch the discussion just like any other interested member might watch the discussion, then I have to ask what exactly is noteworthy about that?

When you tell me that I shouldn't participate in a thread because you don't like what I said or how I said it, you are close to breaking the rule regarding attempting to limit participation.

So, take a breath and calm down a little.

When I do such a thing, then a warning might be appropriate.  Since I have done no such thing, your suggestion that I have is pure slander.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that you have few scruples regarding lying and will likely tell any lie under the sun in order to more efficiently extricate yourself from any bind.

I didn't piss in your Cheerios this morning.  Take your bitchiness out on whoever did.

And, just so you know, the mention of rape apologetics wasn't meant for you but you can take offense all you want.  

And as for calling me a liar...thank for showing your true colors.  

I'd say it's been a pleasure, but that would be a lie.

[Angrboda]

Is that addressed to me?



You're full of shit.  You identified a behavior and a consequence for engaging in that behavior, rhetorically asking not to go there.  I'll go there if I damn well please and there ain't fuckall that you can do about it as neither discussing rape nor engaging in rape apologetics are against the rules.  And now you tell me that the thread is being watched.  I presume that you mean that you will be watching this discussion which prompts several questions that I would like answered.  A) What are you watching for?  and B) What do you intend to do once you see it?  As far as I can see, there is nothing inherent in a discussion of rape or engaging in rape apologetics which would authorize you to do anything that any other member is not capable of doing.  Are we going to now be spammed with warnings from you in every discussion that you are watching that discussion as well?  Watch all you like, but as far as I can see you've threatened me not once but twice with the oh so subtle implication that you would be monitoring my behavior pending taking action against me using your privileges as a staff member for discussing rape in a way that you don't find agreeable.  If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that you are going to watch the discussion just like any other interested member might watch the discussion, then I have to ask what exactly is noteworthy about that?



When I do such a thing, then a warning might be appropriate.  Since I have done no such thing, your suggestion that I have is pure slander.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that you have few scruples regarding lying and will likely tell any lie under the sun in order to more efficiently extricate yourself from any bind.

I didn't piss in your Cheerios this morning.  Take your bitchiness out on whoever did.

And, just so you know, the mention of rape apologetics wasn't meant for you but you can take offense all you want.  

And as for calling me a liar...thank for showing your true colors.  

I'd say it's been a pleasure, but that would be a lie.

So you're not going to answer the questions. I don't think it matters whether you were threatening me personally or anyone who "goes there." You've ominously said that you or somebody is watching the discussion but apparently are unwilling to clarify what you mean by that.

Are you accusing me of telling you not to participate in a thread? I suppose that wasn't meant for me personally either. I'd like a yes or no answer on this.

As to my calling you a liar, what would you call someone who suggests that you did something that you didn't do?

I'm not mistaken about who pissed in any cheerios, you threatened to get twitchy if the discussion didn't go the way you like, ominously tell people that they're being watched, and imply that I took actions which bordered on rule violations which I did not take. That's all you, babe.

[Silver]

[arewethereyet]

I didn't piss in your Cheerios this morning.  Take your bitchiness out on whoever did.

And, just so you know, the mention of rape apologetics wasn't meant for you but you can take offense all you want.  

And as for calling me a liar...thank for showing your true colors.  

I'd say it's been a pleasure, but that would be a lie.

So you're not going to answer the questions.  I don't think it matters whether you were threatening me personally or anyone who "goes there."  You've ominously said that you or somebody is watching the discussion but apparently are unwilling to clarify what you mean by that.

Are you accusing me of telling you not to participate in a thread?  I suppose that wasn't meant for me personally either.  I'd like a yes or no answer on this.

As to my calling you a liar, what would you call someone who suggests that you did something that you didn't do?

Go up to #23.  You asked a question and I answered, then you decided my one word answer wasn't respectful enough for me to continue discussion on this thread.

So, yes, you did attempt to limit my participation based on your assumption that "no" as an answer was somehow disrespectful.

And there's no further need for you and I to "discuss" anything.

[Angrboda]

So you're not going to answer the questions.  I don't think it matters whether you were threatening me personally or anyone who "goes there."  You've ominously said that you or somebody is watching the discussion but apparently are unwilling to clarify what you mean by that.

Are you accusing me of telling you not to participate in a thread?  I suppose that wasn't meant for me personally either.  I'd like a yes or no answer on this.

As to my calling you a liar, what would you call someone who suggests that you did something that you didn't do?

Go up to #23.  You asked a question and I answered, then you decided my one word answer wasn't respectful enough for me to continue discussion on this thread.

So, yes, you did attempt to limit my participation based on your assumption that "no" as an answer was somehow disrespectful.

And there's no further need for you and I to "discuss" anything.

More fucking lies. I gave you some friendly advice, suggesting that, "If you find yourself unable to behave respectfully in any discussion, perhaps the best thing for you to do is withdraw." It seemed good advice following upon your declaring that you become twitchy if certain subjects are discussed in a certain way. What part of "If you find yourself unable," translates in your mind as me saying that you were not being respectful? It was simple advice that anyone should follow. That you took that as me "deciding" that you weren't being respectful is fucking reaching. And the latter part is also true. Threatening people that you will become twitchy if they behave a certain way and that they are being watched are both veiled threats that have no place in a good-faith discussion.

The only reason you don't want to discuss this is because you can't defend your behavior.

I suggested that if you were finding the discussion too intense for you, self-moderation might be advised. The reply I got back was that I was saying rape victims were guilty of something, telling me I'm being watched, and accusing me of limiting thread participation. That was not at all warranted. Own your behavior.

[Fake Messiah]

There is nothing more immoral than Christians interrupting into private lives of others and not allowing them to have an abortion after 22 weeks as a medical necessity to save their own life after it is discovered that the fetus is deformed since most deformations can't even be detected until the 20th week.

[arewethereyet]

Go up to #23.  You asked a question and I answered, then you decided my one word answer wasn't respectful enough for me to continue discussion on this thread.

So, yes, you did attempt to limit my participation based on your assumption that "no" as an answer was somehow disrespectful.

And there's no further need for you and I to "discuss" anything.

More fucking lies.  I gave you some friendly advice, suggesting that, "If you find yourself unable to behave respectfully in any discussion, perhaps the best thing for you to do is withdraw."   It seemed good advice following upon your declaring that you become twitchy if certain subjects are discussed in a certain way.  What part of "If you find yourself unable," translates in your mind as me saying that you were not being respectful?  It was simple advice that anyone should follow.  That you took that as me "deciding" that you weren't being respectful is fucking reaching.  And the latter part is also true.  Threatening people that you will become twitchy if they behave a certain way and that they are being watched are both veiled threats that have no place in a good-faith discussion.

The only reason you don't want to discuss this is because you can't defend your behavior.

I suggested that if you were finding the discussion too intense for you, self-moderation might be advised.  The reply I got back was that I was saying rape victims were guilty of something, telling me I'm being watched, and accusing me of limiting thread participation.  That was not at all warranted.  Own your behavior.

How is the view from your high horse?