Comments on: Is There A Moral To The Story…?

By: niran

niran — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:47:04 +0000

You’re the one who doesn’t have the answers. tata

By: Krystalline Apostate

Krystalline Apostate — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:20:42 +0000

Oy, niran, you keep on swinging at air, connecting nothing, & declaring a knockout. I’m getting embarrassed for you.
Bad show, bad form, mate.
I’ll leave you here to mumble to yourself.
Ta.

By: niran

niran — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:24:32 +0000

I must confess a complete naivete in relation to the tactics and the cat and mouse games you claim to have played. Next time I meet someone stupid who cannot support their assertions, I’ll keep in mind that maybe they are playing and perfecting the same game. I actually thought that your inability to support your own views had a much simpler explanation…intelligence or the lack of it of course being the operative factor. Silly me.

P.S- what trumpets mate. Like I said earlier, victory cannot be claimed where a contest has not been had. It’s called a walkover, not victory.

By: Krystalline Apostate

Krystalline Apostate — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:06:17 +0000

niran:

One of the critical arguments in jurisprudential theory made by David Hume(an atheist)and accepted virtually by every single jurist and moral philosopher since, waived away dismissively by our very own Pinocchilocks as an argument only a theist could have made!

Well, grasshopper, you still haven’t been able to snatch that pebble from my hand.
What I meant was (& no doubt you’ll change the definition to suit yourself, you always do), is that the theist looks outside his/herself.
This has been fun, but I’ll wrap this up:
You’ve been wonderfully compliant. Most of what has transpired was inadvertent, but mostly I goaded you to follow me around, & refused to play the game you’ve learned by your rules. This stems not from a lack of comprehension, but an effort to simplify (& flesh out) some techniques I’ve been playing w/.
No doubt your comrades are lauding you in your imaginary marbled halls of intelligentsia over there, but your trumpets of victory signify an insecurity (I’ve told you this before).
I’ll simplify it all for you.
Subtract 1 deity from the equation, & all comes clear.
Rather than pushing from the base of presuppositionalism, you should be walking the middle road.
I can employ a slippery slope point to much of it: allowance of a violation can become a tacit nod to others.

By: niran

niran — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:30:37 +0000

Beautiful! One of the critical arguments in jurisprudential theory made by David Hume(an atheist)and accepted virtually by every single jurist and moral philosopher since, waived away dismissively by our very own Pinocchilocks as an argument only a theist could have made! Haha…

Oh, yes, I’m the one who’s blind to reason.

“Should I do unto others even if I can get what I want without doing unto them…”

Actually a yes or no will do. Maps may be unnecessary but might just be a touch amusing. Might help us all to see the ‘big picture’ so to speak. I really don’t mind…

By: Naomi

Naomi — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:34:55 +0000

KA, yes. And you’re welcome to it, with my “blessing”. (Is there a better phrase that doesn’t borrow from xian-lingo?)

By: Krystalline Apostate

Krystalline Apostate — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:54:49 +0000

niran:

KA, if you get it from your observations about ourselves, your explanation still doesn’t even cross the is-ought hurdle.

Only a theist would say that.

Yes, you don’t lie intentionally KA, let’s just put it down to ignorance shall we?

I think you made a biased judgment there, & are allowing your prejudice to blind you.

Should I do unto others even if I can get what I want without doing unto them…

I’d be happy to draw you a map on this 1, if you weren’t so deadset on laying rhetorical traps that will (metaphorically) sit there & rust.

ChuckA – good points all, & am in agreement.

By: ChuckA

ChuckA — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:50:30 +0000

I have no real intention of entering into the bomb throwing exercise, here.
My Catholic college course in Ethics [Rational Morality?] pretty much centered on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
However…Just a suggestion…my ‘thinking’ is that when humans first decided on oughts/ought nots…or “Thou shalt nots! (no Shalts?)…it had really nothing to do with Logic or Philosophy. It really had to do with Pragmatic EXPERIENCE. In other words: “What works!” Like, if either of youse guys decided, arbitrarily, to kill the other…neither of you would be safe; or expanding that to the tribe…out of danger…or tribally…potential chaos.
Humans, I think, EVOLVED ethics, over eons, more as a practical tribal and inter/intra tribal solution to the overiding planetary, predatory animal, and naturally implied…”Survival of the Species”.
Yeah…humans are STILL animals. [Just check the World news?]
In my opinion, of course, the rather ignorant, minimally literate, “Non-Philosophical” leveled, writers of the OT/NT were handing down, orally transmitted, tribal, mythological, STORIES in which longterm tribal experience was embedded.
The only ‘absolute’ in the whole scheme is related to the Darwinian “Survival of the fittest/Species”; and always, ultimately, remains ‘relative’…to what works!
Sorta like the theory of electricity…we don’t completely understand all the implications of the related Quantum Mechanics involved; but so far…the experientially derived theory does have relative, practical results!
Hmmm…I guess I’ve evolved, in MY life, from a total “Religious Idealist” to a “Pragmatic Skeptic”…?
Yeah…I know..who cares?

“You go guys!”… Have fun sparring with other…over all those “Mysteries of Time and Space”…
ad infintum? As for me…I’m outa here.
Only…ahem…GifS absolutely does have relatively limited Time and Space.
Oh, and…if applicable…
“Happy Father’s Day?”…erm…
you Mothas?