The crisis in Morality

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

ja

A faith assertion, not an argument. Si

A faith assertion, not an argument. yep

And here is the punchline Hillock. They are my faith assertions not what you nor any of the Worshipful company say are my faith assertions .

Bizarre. Anyway, if you want to assert your faith assertions there’s a faith sharing area to do that. If on the other hand you want to post on a discussion forum then you’ll need to do an awful lot better than enter them as if they were facts.

It takes a long time to get you there, but this is a repeating pattern: you think you have an argument to justify your faith beliefs; you try to express it; it’s quickly shown to be false; you lie and insult and divert from the falsifications; then you repeat the mindless faith assertions as if they were facts in any case.

Rather sad really.     

[BeRational]

Is there a commandment "Thou shall keep slaves".I didn't k now that.
Besides,Did you know that the OT was written by and for the people of Isael?

Did you know that non Israelites are only covered by the Noachite laws apparently.No not many Goyim like you and me do.

God was clear  about garments etc but instead of being clear on slavery he set out the rules needed to keep and own slaves.
This show that God was quite happy for humans to own others as property.

Do you think owning people as property and being allowed to beat them is morally good?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God was clear  about garments etc but instead of being clear on slavery he set out the rules needed to keep and own slaves.
This show that God was quite happy for humans to own others as property.

Do you think owning people as property and being allowed to beat them is morally good?

God was not happy with the human race for much after the fall I'm afraid. That is why Jesus had to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Bizarre. Anyway, if you want to assert your faith assertions there’s a faith sharing area to do that. If on the other hand you want to post on a discussion forum then you’ll need to do an awful lot better than enter them as if they were facts.

It takes a long time to get you there, but this is a repeating pattern: you think you have an argument to justify your faith beliefs; you try to express it; it’s quickly shown to be false; you lie and insult and divert from the falsifications; then you repeat the mindless faith assertions as if they were facts in any case.

Rather sad really.     

I'm afraid be rational has just said God was happy with slavery. Was Bluehillside there criticising him for assertion. Was he fuck.
Is  BH hypocritical. Fucking right he is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

God was not happy with the human race for much after the fall I'm afraid. That is why Jesus had to be.

A god beset with petty human emotions like being a bit pissed off eh?

Anyway, once again you've posted a mindless faith claim on a discussion forum as if it was a contribution to a conversation. Would it help you if I gave you a link to the faith sharing area so you could stop wasting your and other peoples' time here? 

Alternatively you could I suppose try an actual argument for once - maybe that explanation for why human-made morality would be "redundant" that you keep running away from would be a useful place to start?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

I'm afraid be rational has just said God was happy with slavery. Was Bluehillside there criticising him for assertion. Was he fuck.
Is  BH hypocritical. Fucking right he is.

Avoidance noted.

Whether a god can be "happy", sad or anything else though is anyone's guess as you're just piling guesswork onto guesswork. If nonetheless you insist on asserting into existence a god who thought it was a good idea to put the important moral rules in some books, then I'd have thought "indifferent to" slavery would be fair given that "He" apparently didn't feel the need to tell us in these books that it was a bad thing.

Why do you worship a god who's indifferent to slavery?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

A god beset with petty human emotions like being a bit pissed off eh?

Anyway, once again you've posted a mindless faith claim on a discussion forum as if it was a contribution to a conversation. Would it help you if I gave you a link to the faith sharing area so you could stop wasting your and other peoples' time here? 

Alternatively you could I suppose try an actual argument for once - maybe that explanation for why human-made morality would be "redundant" that you keep running away from would be a useful place to start?

Hillside. Geologists paleontologists etc are still examining the lower older strata for evidence of you proving theist logical fallacy and your demolition of well,pretty much everything.

Now I'm not a Full Hillsidesettlingallargumentsinfavourof his atheismmyther but one does wonder.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

A god beset with petty human emotions like being a bit pissed off eh?

Anyway, once again you've posted a mindless faith claim on a discussion forum as if it was a contribution to a conversation. Would it help you if I gave you a link to the faith sharing area so you could stop wasting your and other peoples' time here? 

Alternatively you could I suppose try an actual argument for once - maybe that explanation for why human-made morality would be "redundant" that you keep running away from would be a useful place to start?

Hillside. Geologists paleontologists etc are still examining the lower older strata for evidence of you proving theist logical fallacy and your demolition of well,pretty much everything.

Now I'm not a Full Hillsidesettlingallargumentsinfavourof his atheismmyther but one does wonder.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Hillside. Geologists paleontologists etc are still examining the lower older strata for evidence of you proving theist logical fallacy and your demolition of well,pretty much everything.

I know flat out lying is your thing, but if only the better to cover your tracks you really should try to be a bit less obvious about it. Your standard operating procedure is to attempt an argument to justify a faith belief, I and others quickly tell you why the argument is wrong, and instead of even attempting to rebut the falsification you ignore it, lie about it or insult it. It’s disgraceful behaviour and I have no idea what you get from it – maybe as NS suggested your lying excites you in some way?

Now I'm not a Full Hillsidesettlingallargumentsinfavourof his atheismmyther but one does wonder.

Incomprehensible avoidance noted.

Anyway, can we now take it that you’re never even going to bother trying to argue for your argument-free assertion that human-made morality would be “redundant”?

Funny that.

[BeRational]

God was not happy with the human race for much after the fall I'm afraid. That is why Jesus had to be.

You seem afraid of the simple question.
I understand why as it shows that your god if it existed and the words in the bible accurately describe his thoughts would be immoral.
I am more moral than your god as are most people and I suspect you are too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

I know flat out lying is your thing, but if only the better to cover your tracks you really should try to be a bit less obvious about it. Your standard operating procedure is to attempt an argument to justify a faith belief, I and others quickly tell you why the argument is wrong, and instead of even attempting to rebut the falsification you ignore it, lie about it or insult it. It’s disgraceful behaviour and I have no idea what you get from it – maybe as NS suggested your lying excites you in some way?

Incomprehensible avoidance noted.

Anyway, can we now take it that you’re never even going to bother trying to argue for your argument-free assertion that human-made morality would be “redundant”?

Funny that.

Well let's test the idea that it isn't a redundant term in yours and others thinking and therefore your thinking doesn't actually address morality. Which is what I'm really arguing. I think you are misrepresenting what my argument is. You are effectively saying Cultural hegemony successfully reinforces taste and fashion. See Your take can be explained without reference to morality.

So what you say is my argument actually isn't.

So let's try something else......
Let's choose an immoral behaviour. Not modern slavery. I'm not sure we can agree on whether that is immoral or whether you think it's just being a bit firm with the servants. Let's choose say racism. Now  we can agree it is immoral behaviour,but what have you got to put up against those that think it isnt?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Well let's test the idea that it isn't a redundant term in yours and others thinking and therefore your thinking doesn't actually address morality.

Dear god – I know you’ve never understood the burden of proof principle, but could you at least try just for once to grasp it this time? You were the one who asserted that human-made morality would be redundant, so it’s your job to justify the clam with an argument. All I need to do is to conclude that – so far at least – you’ve provided no such argument so there’s no need to take the claim seriously.   

Which is what I'm really arguing.

You haven’t argued anything yet – just asserted it.

I think you are misrepresenting what my argument is.

No, that’s impossible because – so far at least – you haven’t made an argument. There’s nothing to misrepresent.

You are effectively saying Cultural hegemony successfully reinforces taste and fashion.

What I’m “effectively saying” is, “what is your argument to justify your claim that human-made morality would be redundant?”

See Your take can be explained without reference to morality.

Er, no. My “take” is that it can be explained without reference to your asserted claim about morality that you’re unable to justify with an argument.
 

So what you say is my argument actually isn't.

Stop lying. I don’t say that anything is your argument – you don’t have one.

So let's try something else......

No, let’s not. Let’s instead try you finally telling us what argument you have to justify your claim that human-made morality would be redundant, or instead admit hat you don’t have one so it’s just an unqualified assertion..

Let's choose an immoral behaviour. Not modern slavery. I'm not sure we can agree on whether that is immoral or whether you think it's just being a bit firm with the servants. Let's choose say racism. Now  we can agree it is immoral behaviour,but what have you got to put up against those that think it isnt?

Reason and argument that I think to be persuasive. That diversion though doesn’t allow you to slide off the hook again about the problem you keep running away from when you make the assertion that human-made morality would be redundant: what argument do you have to justify your assertion? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Dear god – I know you’ve never understood the burden of proof principle, but could you at least try just for once to grasp it this time? You were the one who asserted that human-made morality would be redundant, so it’s your job to justify the clam with an argument. All I need to do is to conclude that – so far at least – you’ve provided no such argument so there’s no need to take the claim seriously.   

You haven’t argued anything yet – just asserted it.

No, that’s impossible because – so far at least – you haven’t made an argument. There’s nothing to misrepresent.

What I’m “effectively saying” is, “what is your argument to justify your claim that human-made morality would be redundant?”

Er, no. My “take” is that it can be explained without reference to your asserted claim about morality that you’re unable to justify with an argument.
 
Stop lying. I don’t say that anything is your argument – you don’t have one.

No, let’s not. Let’s instead try you finally telling us what argument you have to justify your claim that human-made morality would be redundant, or instead admit hat you don’t have one so it’s just an unqualified assertion..

Reason and argument that I think to be persuasive. That diversion though doesn’t allow you to slide off the hook again about the problem you keep running away from when you make the assertion that human-made morality would be redundant: what argument do you have to justify your assertion? 

An excellent example of how you have taken something like burden of proof and violated it.
If you are saying morality is human made you don't get to say
The burden of proof is on the person who disagrees with that.

So fuck off with that shit.

As it happens. I've put my argument how your model of morality contains effectively no moral content and nothing that cannot be explained in terms other than morality.  You can try substituting cultural hegemony with something else. Unless that something is morality the result is always going  to be whatever you suggest the term morality seems to be redundant. If people are moral it is because they are still in touch with moral reality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

An excellent example of how you have taken something like burden of proof and violated it.

Utter bollocks. Human-made morality supposedly being “redundant” was your claim, not mine. It’s your job therefore to justify it. Your entire post was an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. Didn’t work though did it.
 

If you are saying morality is human made you don't get to say

Again, if you want to make that assertion then justify it with an argument. What’s stopping you?

The burden of proof is on the person who disagrees with that.

No it isn’t – there’s nothing to prove as there’s only your un-argued assertion on the table. Is it your burden of proof to justify your non-agreement with my assertion that leprechauns love tap dancing? Why not?

You’re the one who asserted human-made morality to be redundant. When do you propose to attempt at least an argument to justify your claim?     

So fuck off with that shit.

When you fuck up you really go all in don’t you.

As it happens. I've put my argument how your model of morality contains effectively no moral content and nothing that cannot be explained in terms other than morality.

No you haven’t. You’ve just asserted it to be so, but you’ve offered no argument at all. Stop lying.

You can try substituting cultural hegemony with something else. Unless that something is morality the result is always going  to be whatever you suggest the term morality seems to be redundant. If people are moral it is because they are still in touch with moral reality.

You can try shifting the burden of proof all you like, but you’re still just reifying your entirely un-argued assertion that any morality other than your assertion of what it should be must be wrong. So yet again:

DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”?

Look, I’ll even get you started:

Dear Blue,

On various occasions I have asserted that human-made morality would be redundant. Until now I have never attempted an argument to justify that claim, so there has been no reason to take it seriously. I now have that argument that I set out as follows…

There you go – all you have to do now is to complete the rest.

Surely you must have something in the locker right?

Anything at all?

No?

[Roses]

 

[Outrider]

Perce,

Utter bollocks. Human-made morality supposedly being “redundant” was your claim, not mine. It’s your job therefore to justify it. Your entire post was an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. Didn’t work though did it.
 
Again, if you want to make that assertion then justify it with an argument. What’s stopping you?

No it isn’t – there’s nothing to prove as there’s only your un-argued assertion on the table. Is it your burden of proof to justify your non-agreement with my assertion that leprechauns love tap dancing? Why not?

You’re the one who asserted human-made morality to be redundant. When do you propose to attempt at least an argument to justify your claim?     

When you fuck up you really go all in don’t you.

No you haven’t. You’ve just asserted it to be so, but you’ve offered no argument at all. Stop lying.

You can try shifting the burden of proof all you like, but you’re still just reifying your entirely un-argued assertion that any morality other than your assertion of what it should be must be wrong. So yet again:

DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”?

Look, I’ll even get you started:

Dear Blue,

On various occasions I have asserted that human-made morality would be redundant. Until now I have never attempted an argument to justify that claim, so there has been no reason to take it seriously. I now have that argument that I set out as follows…

There you go – all you have to do now is to complete the rest.

Surely you must have something in the locker right?

Anything at all?

No?

Vlad, if you could see your way to explaining in there what definition of slavery you're working from that doesn't involve the legal ownership of people that'd be helpful too.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Utter bollocks. Human-made morality supposedly being “redundant” was your claim, not mine. It’s your job therefore to justify it. Your entire post was an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. Didn’t work though did it.
 
Again, if you want to make that assertion then justify it with an argument. What’s stopping you?

No it isn’t – there’s nothing to prove as there’s only your un-argued assertion on the table. Is it your burden of proof to justify your non-agreement with my assertion that leprechauns love tap dancing? Why not?

You’re the one who asserted human-made morality to be redundant. When do you propose to attempt at least an argument to justify your claim?     

When you fuck up you really go all in don’t you.

No you haven’t. You’ve just asserted it to be so, but you’ve offered no argument at all. Stop lying.

You can try shifting the burden of proof all you like, but you’re still just reifying your entirely un-argued assertion that any morality other than your assertion of what it should be must be wrong. So yet again:

DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”?

Look, I’ll even get you started:

Dear Blue,

On various occasions I have asserted that human-made morality would be redundant. Until now I have never attempted an argument to justify that claim, so there has been no reason to take it seriously. I now have that argument that I set out as follows…

There you go – all you have to do now is to complete the rest.

Surely you must have something in the locker right?

Anything at all?

No?

I'm sure your scratching are like a glimpse of Disneyland to your atheist Chummosbut the wee problemo is is what you are saying my argument is isnt my argument.

I wouldn't say morality is redundant I'm saying how you use the word it is redundant since the words you pair it with suffice or the sense in which you use the word morality has another term which can replace it.

[Roses]

Vlad, if you could see your way to explaining in there what definition of slavery you're working from that doesn't involve the legal ownership of people that'd be helpful too.

O.

Don't ask for the impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

I'm sure your scratching are like a glimpse of Disneyland to your atheist Chummosbut the wee problemo is is what you are saying my argument is isnt my argument.

Does your lying get you excited or something?

Yet again: I CANNOT BE SAYING WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS OR ISN’T BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T MADE ONE.

Clear enough for you now?

I wouldn't say morality is redundant…

What you said was that human-made morality would be redundant. Are you standing by that un-argued assertion, or are you now resiling from it?

I'm saying how you use the word it is redundant since the words you pair it with suffice or the sense in which you use the word morality has another term which can replace it.

Incomprehensible, (and irrelevant) gibberish.

Yet again: YOU ASSERTED THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”. WHAT ARGUMENT  DO YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY THAT CLAIM?

It’s ok old son, really it is. Rather than keep twisting in the wind about this why not just admit that you don’t have one so we can all move on? You’d feel much better for it if you did.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, if you could see your way to explaining in there what definition of slavery you're working from that doesn't involve the legal ownership of people that'd be helpful too.

O.

Are these people working for nothing  Yes
Are they forced to do so.
Are they being kept in sub human conditions yes
Are there laws against this Yes...... Not actually slavery is it then.

Of course it's fucking slavery.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Are these people working for nothing  Yes
Are they forced to do so.
Are they being kept in sub human conditions yes
Are there laws against this Yes...... Not actually slavery is it then.

Of course it's fucking slavery.

Are these people legally owned? If not, then their status does not satisfy the definition of the term according to the 1926 Convention. Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

Oh, and as you just ignored the question: why do you worship a god who's indifferent to slavery? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Does your lying get you excited or something?

Yet again: I CANNOT BE SAYING WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS OR ISN’T BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T MADE ONE.

Clear enough for you now?

What you said was that human-made morality would be redundant. Are you standing by that un-argued assertion, or are you now resiling from it?

Incomprehensible, (and irrelevant) gibberish.

Yet again: YOU ASSERTED THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”. WHAT ARGUMENT  DO YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY THAT CLAIM?

It’s ok old son, really it is. Rather than keep twisting in the wind about this why not just admit that you don’t have one so we can all move on? You’d feel much better for it if you did.   

I'm not going to make that argument because it isnt my argument. Since it isnt my argument I dont need to retract it.
If I ever make that argument I would immediately retract it.
And above and beyond all that what you mean by morality isnt morality as I have demonstrated.

I shall say zis only once. Genuine Morality is never redundant. It can even spring out of someone like yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

I'm not going to make that argument because it isnt my argument. Since it isnt my argument I dont need to retract it.

Yes it fucking is (and it’s an assertion rather than an argument in any case). You’ve asserted several times that human-made morality would be “redundant”, is “arse pull”, isn’t “real” morality etc. Why lie about that now? 

If I ever make that argument I would immediately retract it.

Do it then.

And above and beyond all that what you mean by morality isnt morality as I have demonstrated.

Liar. Now that you’ve just made the same un-argued assertion again, if you think you’ve demonstrated it then tell us what that demonstration was. I’ve never seen it.     

I shall say zis only once. Genuine Morality is never redundant. It can even spring out of someone like yourself.

What the fuck are you even trying to say here? What makes morality “genuine” – or are you just repeating your previous un-argued, non-justified, non-demonstrated assertion about that?

Once more: WHAT ARGUMENT DO YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY YOUR ASSERTION THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”, “ARSE PULL”, “TURDPOLISHING”, NOT “REAL” ETC?

If you don’t have an argument to justify the assertion – and clearly you don’t – then just say so. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Yes it fucking is (and it’s an assertion rather than an argument in any case). You’ve asserted several times that human-made morality would be “redundant”, is “arse pull”, isn’t “real” morality etc. Why lie about that now? 

Do it then.

Liar. Now that you’ve just made the same un-argued assertion again, if you think you’ve demonstrated it then tell us what that demonstration was. I’ve never seen it.     

What the fuck are you even trying to say here? What makes morality “genuine” – or are you just repeating your previous un-argued, non-justified, non-demonstrated assertion about that?

Once more: WHAT ARGUMENT DO YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY YOUR ASSERTION THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”, “ARSE PULL”, “TURDPOLISHING”, NOT “REAL” ETC?

If you don’t have an argument to justify the assertion – and clearly you don’t – then just say so.

I've just done a search Hillside and the phrase "Human Made morality is redundant"......is yours. Not mine.

Wah wah wah waaaaaaaaah.

[Outrider]

Are these people working for nothing  Yes
Are they forced to do so.
Are they being kept in sub human conditions yes
Are there laws against this Yes...... Not actually slavery is it then.

Of course it's fucking slavery.

No, it's exploitation, it's illegal, there is legal recourse, there are active government policies prohibiting it, it's fundamentally different from slavery which wasn't just those practical concerns but it was the normalisation of those, it was the state actively impressing those conditions on people, not criminals having to do so in the dark crevices of society.

If you can't grasp how that makes things fundamentally different, I'm not sure how I can explain it to you any more simply.

O.