1. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    18 Jun '17 13:34
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    But how do you account for them being morally unsound? Are these actions morally unsound based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought that these actions are morally unsound? Sounds like argumentum ad populum....
    The question I asked KellyJay was "what extra purchase do you think your religiosity gives you when considering these behaviours and demeanours (when lot of the stuff in the OP doesn't need any of your god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound actions)?

    Neither you nor he has addressed this. Meanwhile, my moral compas - it's nature, it's origin, it's purpose and it's application - I have already addressed at length and in detail.
  2. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    18 Jun '17 14:09
    Originally posted by FMF
    The question I asked KellyJay was "what extra purchase do you think your religiosity gives you when considering these behaviours and demeanours (when lot of the stuff in the OP doesn't need any of your god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound actions)?

    Neither you nor he has addressed this. Meanwhile, my moral compas - it's nature, i ...[text shortened]... 's origin, it's purpose and it's application - I have already addressed at length and in detail.
    You said that the stuff in the OP doesn't require god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound. Do you anything other than an 'argumentum ad populum' to support this statement?
  3. The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28598
    18 Jun '17 14:12
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    You said that the stuff in the OP doesn't require god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound. Do you anything other than an 'argumentum ad populum' to support this statement?
    I appreciate you have just discovered the expression 'argumentum ad populum,' but please use it sparingly.
  4. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    18 Jun '17 14:13
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    You said that the stuff in the OP doesn't require god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound. Do you anything other than an 'argumentum ad populum' to support this statement?
    We've discussed morality before ~ or at least, I tried to discuss it with you. I have no intention of repeating myself to you.
  5. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    19 Jun '17 07:08
    Originally posted by FMF
    We've discussed morality before ~ or at least, I tried to discuss it with you. I have no intention of repeating myself to you.
    Well we can agree that without God morality boils down to personal preference.
  6. The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28598
    19 Jun '17 07:21
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Well we can agree that without God morality boils down to personal preference.
    To reduce morality to personal 'preference' leaves me questioning the integrity of your own morality. Google 'conscience' and come back to us.
  7. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    19 Jun '17 07:562 edits
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    To reduce morality to personal 'preference' leaves me questioning the integrity of your own morality. Google 'conscience' and come back to us.
    It is your choice whether or not you wish to obey your conscience, no? And if God does not exist you could easily get away with it if you don't. So the interesting question is why pretend that your morality is not a matter of personal preference?
  8. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    19 Jun '17 09:09
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Well we can agree that without God morality boils down to personal preference.
    You can claim what you want about what you have said and what I have said ~ and the extent to which you now claim we "agree". However, I suggest you sift through the previous discussions we've had on this topic and refer specifically to my characterization of my stance instead of offering your own characterization of it.
  9. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    19 Jun '17 09:281 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    You can claim what you want about what you have said and what I have said ~ and the extent to which you now claim we "agree". However, I suggest you sift through the previous discussions we've had on this topic and refer specifically to my characterization of my stance instead of offering your own characterization of it.
    You decide whether or not an action is moral. If you disagree feel free to say so. Why are you so apposed to the notion that your morality is dependent on your own personal preferences when it clearly is?
  10. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    19 Jun '17 09:39
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    You decide whether or not an action is moral. If you disagree feel free to say so.
    If you are genuinely interested in my views on morality and the extent to which we agree and disagree about it, please just refer to previous threads where we discussed it.
  11. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    19 Jun '17 09:42
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Why are you so apposed to the notion that your morality is dependent on your own personal preferences when it clearly is?
    What notions I am "opposed to" and not "opposed to" is quite clear from what I have said to you about it in the past. I don't need to repeat myself to you, and won't.
  12. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    19 Jun '17 09:43
    Originally posted by FMF
    If you are genuinely interested in my views on morality and the extent to which we agree and disagree about it, please just refer to previous threads where we discussed it.
    It is clear to me from the previous threads that you decide whether or not an action is moral. And that the basis of your decisions rest primarily upon your own personal preferences. And I find it interesting that you are so apposed to the notion that your morality is guided primarily by your own personal preferences. Why is that?
  13. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    19 Jun '17 09:44
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    It is clear to me from the previous threads that you decide whether or not an action is moral. And that the basis of your decisions rest primarily upon your own personal preferences.
    It's clear you either didn't read or didn't understand - or have forgotten - what I wrote.
  14. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    19 Jun '17 09:45
    Originally posted by FMF
    What notions I am "opposed to" and not "opposed to" is quite clear from what I have said to you about it in the past. I don't need to repeat myself to you, and won't.
    If God exists he decides what is right and wrong, if he doesn't exist, you decide.
  15. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    19 Jun '17 09:45
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    And I find it interesting that you are so apposed to the notion that your morality is guided primarily by your own personal preferences. Why is that?
    Why have you repeated this question two posts in a row a few minutes apart?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree