06 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think guys bragging about their willingness or ability to resort to violence in an online forum is inappropriate, ludicrous, and utterly pointless ~ all in all it is just lacking in common sense.
Sigh FMF is a victim of the shifting sands of social convention and what is deemed to be politically correct, constantly in a state of flux, he picks those elements which appeals to him personally and rejects those which don't upon the great ethical buffet table. Its a room full or mirrors.
My point of view is also a "social convention" and there was a time on the Debates Forum when 'internet tough guys' just got scoffed at for being pathetic in this particular way.
If you choose to label as "politically correct" what is, to me, mere "common sense" and "common decency", then that is fine. Both your compass and mine are plain to see.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow do you square this 'criticism' with your own claims to be a "free moral agent"?
...he picks those elements which appeals to him personally and rejects those which don't upon the great ethical buffet table....
As you say, I find some things ethical and other things unethical. Is that really something to be criticized for?
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFBoth your compass and mine are plain to see.
I think guys bragging about their willingness or ability to resort to violence in an online forum is inappropriate, ludicrous, and utterly pointless ~ all in all it is just lacking in common sense.
My point of view is also a "social convention" and there was a time on the Debates Forum when 'internet tough guys' just got scoffed at for being pathetic in this ...[text shortened]... mon sense" and "common decency", then that is fine. Both your compass and mine are plain to see.
Hardly considering I have not made a single claim except to draw attention to the fact that the only perspective that matters to you, is yours.
Originally posted by FMFYou are not being criticized for finding somethings ethical or unethical, you are being criticized for the basis on which you place your ethical stance, that being what is deemed to be politically correct and contemporary social convention particularly secular liberalism, in fact if you can cite a single instance of you baulking against the accepted norm, then please do so, for I can find not a single instance.
How do you square this 'criticism' with your own claims to be a "free moral agent"?
As you say, I find some things ethical and other things unethical. Is that really something to be criticized for?
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, there have been no shifting sands. I have been a supporter of the advance of women's rights my whole adult life ~ over 30 years. I have never been disposed to threaten violence or to boast about willingness and capacity to use violence to settle disputes or to respond to perceived disrespect; not even when I was a teenager. so, no shifting sands. No state of flux. And an unwavering commitment to social conventions that have been in the mainstream for decades.
FMF is a victim of the shifting sands of social convention and what is deemed to be politically correct, constantly in a state of flux....
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFwell row row row your boat down the middle of the stream, merrily merrily life is but a dream!
No, there have been no shifting sands. I have been a supporter of the advance of women's rights my whole adult life ~ over 30 years. I have never been disposed to threaten violence or to boast about willingness and capacity to use violence to settle disputes or to respond to perceived disrespect; not even when I was a teenager. so, no shifting sands. No state of ...[text shortened]... And an unwavering commitment to social conventions that have been in the mainstream for decades.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJudging from the fact that it is me that you have chosen to tackle after this two-themed discussion, and not FreakyKBH or ChessPraxis, then you must presumably believe that that bragging about being violent or willing to be violent in an online forum is an "accepted norm".
You are not being criticized for finding somethings ethical or unethical, you are being criticized for the basis on which you place your ethical stance, that being what is deemed to be politically correct and contemporary social convention particularly secular liberalism, in fact of you can cite a single instance of you baulking against the accepted norm, then please do so, for I can find not a single instance.
And judging from the fact that it is me that you have chosen to tackle and not lemon lime, then presumably you believe that rejecting the advances of the women's movement and the progress made regarding women's rights is an "accepted norm".
Well, I have "baulked" against both of these norms on this thread.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, you have no answer to my rebuttal of your suggestion that my principles and beliefs are "in constant flux" and built on "shifting sands"?
well row row row your boat down the middle of the stream, merrily merrily life is but a dream!
06 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wouldn't be debating people if the only perspective that mattered to me was mine.
Hardly considering I have not made a single claim except to draw attention to the fact that the only perspective that matters to you, is yours.
Originally posted by FMFI have not said its acceptable or unacceptable, in fact I have made no claims at all other than to point out that you are essentially interested only in your own perspective. So you consider it 'normal', to express a violent attitude on an Internet forum, and yet you claim to baulk against it? a position which is neither logical nor coherent.
Judging from the fact that it is me that you have chosen to tackle after this two-themed discussion, and not FreakyKBH or ChessPraxis, then you must presumably believe that that bragging about being violent or willing to be violent in an online forum is an "accepted norm".
And judging from the fact that it is me that you have chosen to tackle and not lemon li ...[text shortened]... ts is an "accepted norm".
Well, I have "baulked" against both of these norms on this thread.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFOn the contrary you have time and again sunk into insipid platitudes of, 'its fine by me', rhetoric when pressed upon to give answers to questions that trouble you or you have no answer for.
I wouldn't be debating people if the only perspective that mattered to me was mine.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFYet only a few days ago you were telling us how you gave up and rejected your Christianity, now if thats not a state of flux, in fact a complete metamorphosis then i don't know what is.
So, you have no answer to my rebuttal of your suggestion that my principles and beliefs are "in constant flux" and built on "shifting sands"?
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou chose to tackle me over my ethics after I have spent this thread criticizing bragging about violence online. You chose to tackle me over my ethics after I have spent this thread welcoming and supporting the advance of women's rights. If you wish to keep your views on these two matters secret, that's fine.
I have not said its acceptable or unacceptable, in fact I have made no claims at all other than to point out that you are essentially interested only in your own perspective. So you consider it 'normal', to express a violent attitude on an Internet forum', and yet you claim to baulk against it? a position which is neither logical nor coherent.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFIndeed, it is fine and I will.
You chose to tackle me over my ethics after I have spent this thread criticizing bragging about violence online. You chose to tackle me over my ethics after I have spent this thread welcoming and supporting the advance of women's rights. If you wish to keep your views on these two matters secret, that's fine.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy essential moral compass has not changed. I have simply discarded the superstition and religious dogma. My views on violence and on women's rights have been unaffected by becoming an ex-Christian
Yet only a few days ago you were telling us how you gave up and rejected your Christianity, now if thats not a state of flux, in fact a complete metamorphosis then i don't know what is.