Hitler

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How do I dodge a post that has no question addressed to me?

By making no comment at all about what he has explicitly put to you about your intellectual behaviour,, in a post addressed to you. in which he was responding directly to one of your questions, and after having read dozens and dozens of your posts.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So how do you know that you are right and the ghost is wrong?

I don't think Ghost of a Duke is wrong about rape. He condemns it just as I do.

Originally posted by chaney3
Where are your questions going?

In the end, Fetchmyjunk has little to offer on the subject of morality other than how he sees his morality as being based on the supposed wishes of a supernatural being that he imagines exists. and if I don't believe in the same supernatural being as he does, my moral sensibilities and actions "don't matter", are "incoherent", and make "no logical sense".

Originally posted by FMF
In the end, Fetchmyjunk has little to offer on the subject of morality other than how he sees his morality as being based on the supposed wishes of a supernatural being that he imagines exists. and if I don't believe in the same supernatural being as he does, my moral sensibilities and actions "don't matter", are "incoherent", and make "no logical sense".

It seems like he is purposely avoiding the word 'God', and replacing it with pages of 'absolutes' and 'universal truth'.

Just say God if that's what you mean, and be honest about it.

Originally posted by chaney3
It seems like he is purposely avoiding the word 'God', and replacing it with pages of 'absolutes' and 'universal truth'.

Just say God if that's what you mean, and be honest about it.

If I recall correctly he said it explicitly earlier. His "intellectual behaviour" on this thread is pretty much about nothing except that he thinks his superstitious beliefs make his opinions about moral matters "universally true". In a sense, it's a big yawn to me ~ especially with all his clumsy rhetorical mannerisms and tricks ~ but, in another sense it is interesting as I find the way he conducts himself in interpersonal and intellectual terms is utterly hamstrung by the sheer narrowness of what he is proposing and the way it seems to deprive him of a joined-up appreciation of the realities of the human condition.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't think Ghost of a Duke is wrong about rape. He condemns it just as I do.

If he says there are no moral absolutes it means there are scenarios that could morally justify rape.

Originally posted by chaney3
Do you have an 'objective standard'?
Is it God?
Are you somehow trying to get FMF to admit an 'objective standard' is required, therefore equating that to God?

Where are your questions going?

When you say something is good or evil it means you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver. I believe the moral law giver is God. If God does not exist it means good and evil is only based on the subjective opinions of man and there is no objective standard by which to differentiate between good and evil.

Originally posted by FMF
In the end, Fetchmyjunk has little to offer on the subject of morality other than how he sees his morality as being based on the supposed wishes of a supernatural being that he imagines exists. and if I don't believe in the same supernatural being as he does, my moral sensibilities and actions "don't matter", are "incoherent", and make "no logical sense".

When you say rape is always evil, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver. So who is the law giver of the moral law you are positing? If it FMF or society?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If he says there are no moral absolutes it means there are scenarios that could morally justify rape.

Ask him about it rather than asserting disingenuously that he and I disagree about the morality of rape.

Originally posted by FMF
Ask him about it rather than asserting disingenuously that he and I disagree about the morality of rape.

I have and he could not even get himself to admit that torturing babies for the sole purpose of having fun is always wrong. Because he understands the implications of such an admission. You clearly don't.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When you say something is good or evil it means you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver. I believe the moral law giver is God. If God does not exist it means good and evil is only based on the subjective opinions of man and there is no objective standard by which to differentiate between good and evil.

So you assume one thing, and then another, pile it on top of the first assumption, and then assume another thing, and pile that on top of the rest - all of them superstitious things that you have no concrete or convincing proof of, mind you - and... hey presto! ...you've granted yourself a licence to unilaterally declare your beliefs and opinions "universally true". It may work for you, and it may work for other people with the same belief in supernatural things as you, but it's meaningless to me.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I have and he could not even get himself to admit that torturing babies for the sole purpose of having fun is always wrong. Because he understands the implications of such an admission. You clearly don't.

There's the word "admit" again ~ one of your gimmicks. We shall see what he says when he turns up.

Because of his moral sensibilities which are more grown up than your childlike zealotry, I'd trust him to defend and protect my children if I left them alone with him. You on the other hand, I would not be able to trust.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When you say rape is always evil, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.

Where did I tell you I "assume there's such a thing as a moral law"? Copy paste where I said this. You are ignoring what I have been saying all along and now you are trying to attribute claims and assumptions to me that I have not made.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver. So who is the law giver of the moral law you are positing? If it FMF or society?

I don't "assume a moral law" and I don't "posit a moral Law Giver". You are making stuff up. You are ignoring pretty much everything I have explicitly stated about what I believe for about the last 50 pages. You're just ignoring it and instead attributing your own superstitious notions [or a version of them] to me.

Originally posted by chaney3
It seems like he is purposely avoiding the word 'God', and replacing it with pages of 'absolutes' and 'universal truth'.

He thinks very highly of himself and the things he imagines to be "true".