My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

I'm just happy to flag up the contradictions in moral relativism...

Just to note that asserting something rather than demonstrating it isn't "flagging up" anything. What Trollboy is actually saying here is something like, "moral relativism contradicts my personal but un-argued opinion that the only real morality is objective morality, therefore moral relativism is contradictory".

Why on earth he thinks that but not, say, that art appreciation can't be real unless there's a big book of divinely ordained correct aesthetic positions is anyone's guess, but as he never feels like offering an argument to support his opinions I guess we'll never know. 

Might be interesting if there's a moral objectivist out there who could at least attempt an argument to demonstrate it, but until then it remains a complete dead end with Trollboy at the end of it howling at the moon, "But it'th twoo I tell you, it'th twoo...".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are the one that claims moral objective values.

Therefore YOU have the burden of proof.

Demonstrate a moral value that is OBJECTIVELY true.

I bet you can't, and if you can't you must stop saying that morality is objective.

No I think I'll let you guys moulder in moral relativism.
Of course that won't happen and you will be wearing your moral realist hats soon enough.

[BeRational]

No I think I'll let you guys moulder in moral relativism.
Of course that won't happen and you will be wearing your moral realist hats soon enough.

So you admit that you cannot demonstrate that which you claim is true.

You lose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

You are the one that claims moral objective values.

Therefore YOU have the burden of proof.

Demonstrate a moral value that is OBJECTIVELY true.

I bet you can't, and if you can't you must stop saying that morality is objective.

Or better yet a method to explain how any moral opinion could be determined objectively to be correct or not.

Sadly as Trollboy just runs away when asked for a method of any kind (for example, a method to distinguish his "whatever pops into my head-ism is true for you too" from just guessing) I guess we'll never have a answer to that one either. Oh well.

[BeRational]

BR,

Or better yet a method to explain how any moral opinion could be determined objectively to be correct or not.

Sadly as Trollboy just runs away when asked for a method of any kind (for example, a method to distinguish his "whatever pops into my head-ism is true for you too" from just guessing) I guess we'll never have a answer to that one either. Oh well.

I think he said it has something to do with Love.

So as long as I say I am doing something due to love, I can do anything!

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

You lose.

That happened a long time ago.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

I think he said it has something to do with Love.

So as long as I say I am doing something due to love, I can do anything!

Ah the horrors that have been committed by people who thought they were acting lovingly. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you admit that you cannot demonstrate that which you claim is true.

You lose.

You never even played.

[BeRational]

BR,

Ah the horrors that have been committed by people who thought they were acting lovingly. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that...

Perhaps that's why god can kill millions with a supposed flood, as long as it was done with love.

[BeRational]

You never even played.

My questions defeated you at least.

Not that it was hard to do, and you had been defeated long before I posted.

To win, you must  demonstrate an objective moral value, and some mechanism which we can use for ANY moral position.

If you can't, you lose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BR,

Ah the horrors that have been committed by people who thought they were acting lovingly. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that...

Glad to see you are choosing your words carefully Hillside.
However as a moral relativist you are actually contradicting yourself suggesting publicly that a bad thing has happened.

[BeRational]

Glad to see you are choosing your words carefully Hillside.
However as a moral relativist you are actually contradicting yourself suggesting publicly that a bad thing has happened.

What is the method?

[bluehillside Retd.]

You never even played.

We'd all lose against Trollboy if the game was Top Trolling. He's got it down pat:

Step 1: Assert the same untruths over and over again

Step 2: Always misrepresent what your interlocutors have actually said in response

Step 3. Never, ever even attempt an argument to support your assertions

Step 4: Claim your victory

Step 5: Repeat Step 1

Face it BR, when it comes to Top Trolling we're amateurs!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My questions defeated you at least.

Not that it was hard to do, and you had been defeated long before I posted.

To win, you must  demonstrate an objective moral value, and some mechanism which we can use for ANY moral position.

If you can't, you lose.

Tell me then why does Bluehillside find it easier to act like a moral objectivist rather than a moral relativist which logically disallows him any public judgment of an act or even holding that judgment?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Tell me then why does Bluehillside find it easier to act like a moral objectivist rather than a moral relativist which logically disallows him any public judgment of an act or even holding that judgment?

Step 1.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We'd all lose against Trollboy if the game was Top Trolling. He's got it down pat:

Step 1: Assert the same untruths over and over again

Step 2: Always misrepresent what your interlocutors have actually said in response

Step 3. Never, ever even attempt an argument to support your assertions

Step 4: Claim your victory

Step 5: Repeat Step 1

Face it BR, when it comes to Top Trolling we're amateurs!

You talk about trolling as a bad thing. Doesn't moral relativism disallow judgments like that?

[BeRational]

Tell me then why does Bluehillside find it easier to act like a moral objectivist rather than a moral relativist which logically disallows him any public judgment of an act or even holding that judgment?

Why do you evade the obvious question from your assertion that morality is objective.

If you cannot demonstrate this, then you are done.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you evade the obvious question from your assertion that morality is objective.

If you cannot demonstrate this, then you are done.

If ever moral realism is done at least it is in a position to be done.....which is more than can be said for moral relativism.

[BeRational]

If ever moral realism is done at least it is in a position to be done.....which is more than can be said for moral relativism.

What is you method.

I am not interested in evasions.

You either have one, or you don't.

If you don't, then stop saying morality is objective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is you method.

I am not interested in evasions.

You either have one, or you don't.

If you don't, then stop saying morality is objective.

Moral relativism is dead Be Rational.........in fact it was never viable.

[BeRational]

Moral relativism is dead Be Rational.........in fact it was never viable.

What is your method for deciding an objective moral position?

I have asked several times and you do not answer, but just post some evasion.

Accept your position is defeated until you show your method.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Moral relativism is dead Be Rational.........in fact it was never viable.

Steps 3 & 4.

[Rhiannon]

I think he said it has something to do with Love.

So as long as I say I am doing something due to love, I can do anything!

Hope agrees with you.

[BeRational]

Hope agrees with you.

Apart from homosexuality though!

[Rhiannon]

No......... post reading.

So by labelling me as prejudiced and biased you seek to discredit any argument I've made or will make.

It's cowardly.