- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by ckoh1965OK let's try and simplify this a little bit... Do you mean to say that that which is true for you is not necessarily true for someone else?
[b]Do you mean to say that right and wrong may EXIST for you and at the same time NOT EXIST for other people?
Yes, that's my contention. For example, to a retard, they may not know the difference between right or wrong, depending on how serious is their condition, of course. So in all practical purposes, right and wrong do not exist for these people ...[text shortened]... probably still kill for a piece of meat. No offence, I'm just obeying my survival instinct.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerSomething being logically right is unrelated to something being morally right. I actually believe that there is a difference between the right and wrong under discussion and moral right and wrong. Logical right and wrong are totally unrelated.
Do you mean to say that something which is morally right, is not logically right as well?
[edit]
1. This is my right hand
2. Murder is not a right thing to do.
3. Believing in two Gods is not right.
4. 1+1=2 is right.
I believe the above to be totally different uses of the words.
1. is the name of a hand.
2. is a moral statement.
3. is a statement of conviction not based on morals
4. is a statement of truth
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow about that which is true vs that which is true for you? Do you mean to say that mere belief determines reality? How do you differentiate between that which is true vs that which is not true?
Something being logically right is unrelated to something being morally right. I actually believe that there is a difference between the right and wrong under discussion and moral right and wrong. Logical right and wrong are totally unrelated.
[edit]
1. This is my right hand
2. Murder is not a right thing to do.
3. Believing in two Gods is not right ...[text shortened]... oral statement.
3. is a statement of conviction not based on morals
4. is a statement of truth
Originally posted by dj2beckerI think that 1+1=2 is true absolutely. It is not dependent on belief. I do not think that there are relative truths.
How about that which is true vs that which is true for you? Do you mean to say that mere belief determines reality? How do you differentiate between that which is true vs that which is not true?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo now you believe that absolute truth exists? Wow that was a sudden transformation! What is the basis for absolute truth?
I think that 1+1=2 is true absolutely. It is not dependent on belief. I do not think that there are relative truths.
So how do you differentiate between that which is absolutely true and that which is absolutely false?
Is the statement, "It is wrong to rape and murder an innocent two year old baby" absolutely true or absolutely false?
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo transformation was involved. I have not changed my stance in any way.
So now you believe that absolute truth exists? Wow that was a sudden transformation! What is the basis for absolute truth?
So how do you differentiate between that which is absolutely true and that which is absolutely false?
It cant always be done and some things are neither. But that doesn't stop them existing.
Is the statement, "It is wrong to rape and murder an innocent two year old baby" absolutely true or absolutely false?
It is not specific enough to be either. As I said right and wrong are relative. So the statement would be absolutely true if said by me and if a few 'no extenuating circumstances' clauses were inserted.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour stance has crumbled into a state of total incoherence...
No transformation was involved. I have not changed my stance in any way.
So how do you differentiate between that which is absolutely true and that which is absolutely false?
It cant always be done and some things are neither. But that doesn't stop them existing.
Is the statement, "It is wrong to rape and murder an innocent two year old utely true if said by me and if a few 'no extenuating circumstances' clauses were inserted.
Do you even understand what you believe?
Originally posted by dj2becker😵
OK let's try and simplify this a little bit... Do you mean to say that that which is true for you is not necessarily true for someone else?
I just love it the way you try to play the role of the wise philosopher who can
see things so much clearer than everyone else and therefore has to "dumb
down" things to our level.
Priceless, coming from your nick.
😵
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt cant always be done and some things are neither. But that doesn't stop them existing.
No transformation was involved. I have not changed my stance in any way.
So how do you differentiate between that which is absolutely true and that which is absolutely false?
It cant always be done and some things are neither. But that doesn't stop them existing.
Is the statement, "It is wrong to rape and murder an innocent two year old utely true if said by me and if a few 'no extenuating circumstances' clauses were inserted.
So when can it be done, and when can't it be done. You are really vague...
It is not specific enough to be either. As I said right and wrong are relative. So the statement would be absolutely true if said by me and if a few 'no extenuating circumstances' clauses were inserted.
Would you mind explaining how right and wrong can be both relative and absolute at the same time? You absolutely contradiction yourself for the umpteenth time...