Disproofs of God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

I think its meaningless until one is personally engaged and finds ones  own moral pulse. Short of that one merely spectators as a moral neutral. I dont think examining the morality of others counts as the detection of moral realism.

"Ones own moral pulse" (sic) is subjective, the antithesis a supposedly objective morality. Try again.

If you seriously think there's objective morality:

1. Demonstrate it

2. Explain how we'd identify it

[Stranger]

I'm sorry but you seem , by making moral dilemmas merely intellectual arguments based on reason and empiricism , to have stepped back from moral reality and indeed moral reasoning.

I'm sorry but intelligence and articulate does not equal morality.
Back I'm afraid into self interest or political and cultural hegemony for the fulfilled in society and Id satisfaction for the inarticulate.
How the hell is human well being to be calculated?
It seems to me by  a narrow oligarchy. Harris,Pinker, the swedish number crunchers?
Focus on social morality by a few seems not to fulfil the conditions for moral involvement
IMHO.

Gibberish.

The fact remains that if you are going to claim that morality is somehow objective, then you need an objective methodology of some kind that can resolve the obvious and glaring different stances people have on moral issues.

If you haven't got such a methodology, that doesn't mean that there definitely isn't "moral reality" but it does mean that we have no way to tell if there is or not, or what it is, if it exists.

Back to the burden of proof - if you claim there is a "moral reality", it's up to you to provide the reasoning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gibberish.

The fact remains that if you are going to claim that morality is somehow objective, then you need an objective methodology of some kind that can resolve the obvious and glaring different stances people have on moral issues.

If you haven't got such a methodology, that doesn't mean that there definitely isn't "moral reality" but it does mean that we have no way to tell if there is or not, or what it is, if it exists.

Back to the burden of proof - if you claim there is a "moral reality", it's up to you to provide the reasoning.

If morality is irreal and you are an irrealist then we are entitled to think that you are play acting when it comes to morality.

The atheist shit juggernaut has tried to pass the following of as morality.

Political and cultural hegemony, behaviour, reason, science.

These are not morality.

Luckily when faced with true moral dilemma which requires a moral solution your Huff about is it objective, can  I demonstrate it scientifically is soon forgotten.....and probably a good job to.

Morality is nearer to maths than taste I would move. It is a domain in which we seek sense and solutions.

[Stranger]

If morality is irreal and you are an irrealist then we are entitled to think that you are play acting when it comes to morality.

The atheist shit juggernaut has tried to pass the following of as morality.

Political and cultural hegemony, behaviour, reason, science.

These are not morality.

Luckily when faced with true moral dilemma which requires a moral solution your Huff about is it objective, can  I demonstrate it scientifically is soon forgotten.....and probably a good job to.

None of this hand-waving, gibberish, and bluster actually addresses the point I made. Why am I not surprised?

Morality is nearer to maths than taste I would move. It is a domain in which we seek sense and solutions.

Is this a joke?

[SteveH]

Stop that Pigeon!

Stop that Former Azure Slope! It's getting increasingly tiresome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

If morality is irreal and you are an irrealist then we are entitled to think that you are play acting when it comes to morality.

Bullshit. Are you “play acting” when you find some art or music to be better than other art or music? Why not?

The atheist shit juggernaut has tried to pass the following of as morality.

Ad hom.

Political and cultural hegemony, behaviour, reason, science.

These are not morality.

Straw man.

Luckily when faced with true moral dilemma which requires a moral solution your Huff about is it objective, can  I demonstrate it scientifically is soon forgotten.....and probably a good job to.

Gibberish.

Morality is nearer to maths than taste I would move. It is a domain in which we seek sense and solutions.

You can “seek” whatever you like – that tells you nothing though about whether there’s an objective, “out there” morality to be found. 

Again…

…if you seriously think there's objective morality:

1. Demonstrate it

2. Explain how we'd identify it

Why keep ducking and diving about this?

[Owlswing]

Response to #680

Why does a man in a swamp keep struggling when he knows it is going to bring about his death even faster than staying still?

[jeremyp]

Stop that Former Azure Slope! It's getting increasingly tiresome.

+1

Every time I see it, the theme tune to Dastardly and Muttley gets planted in my head.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

+1

Every time I see it, the theme tune to Dastardly and Muttley gets planted in my head.

Yes I know - that was the reference I was making! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

+1

Every time I see it, the theme tune to Dastardly and Muttley gets planted in my head.

I’m a bit disappointed that it’s that and not “why is BlueHillside always starting with an ad hominem”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy,

Yes I know - that was the reference I was making!

If I’m the pigeon does that make you Thick Bastardly.

Damn this predictive text.

[jeremyp]

I’m a bit disappointed that it’s that and not “why is BlueHillside always starting with an ad hominem”.

Is it an ad hominem if it is a truthful characterisation?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

I’m a bit disappointed that it’s that and not “why is BlueHillside always starting with an ad hominem”.

That would be because he knows what the term means whereas you, clearly, do not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it an ad hominem if it is a truthful characterisation?

I don’t think that matters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

I don’t think that matters.

Then, as with so much else, you think wrongly. Try looking it up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

That would be because he knows what the term means whereas you, clearly, do not.

I think your wrong there Thick.......Damn this predictive text.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Then, as with so much else, you think wrongly. Try looking it up.

Look up yourself you silly man.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Look up yourself you silly man.

I don't need to - but you do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

I don't need to - but you do.

Let’s not forget poisoning the well either, Thick..........Damn this predictive text.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Let’s not forget poisoning the well either, Thick..........Damn this predictive text.

Your ignorance is showing again. As you can’t be arsed to look it up for yourself, I’ll do it for you:

The ad hom is a fallacy of (ir)relevance. If you say, “it’s my contention that the sun is 93 million miles away” and I reply, “but you’re fat” that’s an ad hom. That’s because my reply does not follow from your contention – it’s a non sequitur (another term you don't understand).

On the other hand, if the person’s behaviour is relevant to the attempted discourse – your propensity for playing pigeon chess, your frequent lying etc come to mind here especially – then referring to these behaviours isn’t an ad hom at all. Why? Because it's relevant.

Here’s a link to get you started:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

And here’s the relevant extract from it:

“Not ad hom[edit]

There is common confusion about what is, and what isn't, ad hominem — that is, what does and does not employ fallacious reasoning. Generally, ad hominem does not mean "crass insult".

When debating about a person[edit]

As ad hominem arguments are only fallacious if they do not follow (non sequitur)-if the argument and the person's character are related then there may not be a fallacy. In particular, a criticism is not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. If the subject of the debate is the inherent trustworthiness of someone, or what prior probability you would assign to them telling the truth, then their previous track record is relevant to the subject. If debating a person's ability to do a task, then their effectiveness at that task or suitably similar ones, is relevant.”

Long ago and far away I cautioned you against attempting words and terns you clearly don’t understand, of which there are very many ("philosophical materialism" etc). 

Perhaps you should have listened.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Your ignorance is showing again. As you can’t be arsed to look it up for yourself, I’ll do it for you:

The ad hom is a fallacy of (ir)relevance. If you say, “it’s my contention that the sun is 93 million miles away” and I reply, “but you’re fat” that’s an ad hom. That’s because my reply does not follow from your contention – it’s a non sequitur (another term you don't understand).

On the other hand, if the person’s behaviour is relevant to the attempted discourse – your propensity for playing pigeon chess, your frequent lying etc come to mind here especially – then referring to these behaviours isn’t an ad hom at all. Why? Because it's relevant.

Here’s a link to get you started:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

And here’s the relevant extract from it:

“Not ad hom[edit]

There is common confusion about what is, and what isn't, ad hominem — that is, what does and does not employ fallacious reasoning. Generally, ad hominem does not mean "crass insult".

When debating about a person[edit]

As ad hominem arguments are only fallacious if they do not follow (non sequitur)-if the argument and the person's character are related then there may not be a fallacy. In particular, a criticism is not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. If the subject of the debate is the inherent trustworthiness of someone, or what prior probability you would assign to them telling the truth, then their previous track record is relevant to the subject. If debating a person's ability to do a task, then their effectiveness at that task or suitably similar ones, is relevant.”

Long ago and far away I cautioned you against attempting words and terns you clearly don’t understand, of which there are very many.

Perhaps you should have listened.

I’m sorry Hillside, I’m afraid that starting off by suggesting somebody is incapable of anything more intelligent than a pigeon is irrelevant to any argument being made. What you are saying in effect is this person is stupid and on that we must judge the argument. Therefore ad hominem. The statement is irrelevant but pretends to relevance

Secondly. It is poisoning the well...... I suggest you get your coat, knitted balaclava and Mittens tied together with elastic and make like a tree.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

I’m sorry Hillside, I’m afraid that starting off by suggesting somebody is incapable of anything more intelligent than a pigeon is irrelevant to any argument being made.

Another straw man. The soubriquet is a reference to you playing pigeon chess, not to your stupidity:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

What you are saying in effect is this person is stupid and on that we must judge the argument.

Not stupid, dishonest.

Therefore ad hominem.

Therefore not.

The statement is irrelevant but pretends to relevance

It’s relevant because it describes one of your behaviours here, which then pollutes any attempt at discourse.

Secondly.

Your firstly just collapsed – there is no “secondly”.

It is poisoning the well......

It’s no such thing. Stop lying.

If I try to sell my services to you as, say, a plasterer and, based on your knowledge of all my lousy efforts hitherto at plastering your walls, you say “but you’re shit at plastering” have you "poisoned the well"?

No? Why not?

That’s right – because you’ve made a criticism that's a) true, and b) relevant.

I suggest you get your coat, knitted balaclava and Mittens tied together with elastic and make like a tree.

And I suggest you stop being so dishonest. A simple apology would be a good place to start - try using the first three words of your last post and go from there...

...actually, on reflection, maybe just stop there too. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is anyone else getting the smell of........wait a minute........urine?........burning?........charred ammonia?..........no wait.....it’s Hillsides pissed-on bonfire.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Is anyone else getting the smell of........wait a minute........urine?........burning?........charred ammonia?..........no wait.....it’s Hillsides pissed-on bonfire.

More lying doesn't help you. Try instead actually addressing your mistake...

...and when you've done that, try addressing the countless others you made before the last one - you know, like those people who have been found guilty of a crime and then ask for another 939 offences to be taken into account. Just think how much better you'd feel if you did that, what with the burden of all that lying you've been doing for years finally lifted from your shoulders...   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

More lying doesn't help you. Try instead actually addressing your mistake...

...and when you've done that, try addressing the countless others you made before the last one - you know, like those people who have been found guilty of a crime and then ask for another 939 offences to be taken into account. Just think how much better you'd feel if you did that, what with the burden of all that lying you've been doing for years finally lifted from your shoulders...

I’m thinking Hillside you must uniquely for this board ad hominem and poison the well in this way. And since there is a lot of exemplar material on this forum......the very post I am quoting from for instance......it was perhaps predictable that you would project your manifold use of two fallacies back on to me when it was pointed out.