ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[soothsayer]

First off, you are an idiot. :dunce:

Secondly, lying isn't necessarily wrong.

I suggest you stay out of this until you are up to speed.

OK...I'll butt out. But I'm not an idiot.

So sorry for the spelling error your highness.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

OK...I'll but out. But I'm not an idiot.

Or you could "butt" out. :doh: And yes... you are an idiot.

 

[JoyfulRook]

Remember Allsmilies;
"What we do in life, echos in eternity"

Just don't let it echo in hell.

 

[Shalom]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Knight again. :doh:

 

[allsmiles]

:duh: Because that is the topic. :dunce:

i understand Knight, my point is that it doesn't have to be.

allsmiles, did you hear the news? fool is a moral absolutist. How about you?

yeah, i've been payin' attention to this thread a little bit :chuckle:

allsmiles.... are you a moral relativist or a moral absolutist?

i don't believe morals exist at all Knight.

some things are absolutely wrong, to me, but i can't speak for anyone else, and you can't either.

i seem to remember us talking about this before...

i seem to remember getting banned...:think:

oh yes, my wounds require more licking.

 

[fool]

fool (the moral absolutist), why do you suppose Bob and I answered in opposite ways?

Initially on Bob's show Bob answered "no" to your question.

Yet online, I answered "yes".

Why do you suppose Bob and I would answer so differently? Give me your best guess.

Because you both know that killing a baby is wrong, it isn't until you're confronted with evidence of your diety ordering it that you begin the rationalization.

 

[avatar382]

:duh: Because that is the topic. :dunce:

allsmiles, did you hear the news? fool is a moral absolutist. How about you?

allsmiles.... are you a moral relativist or a moral absolutist?

Can I play?

I believe moral absolutes do not exist - so all of us are "moral relativists" - even those of us who will not admit it.

 

[allsmiles]

Because you both know that killing a baby is wrong, it isn't until you're confronted with evidence of your diety ordering it that you begin the rationalization.

:chuckle: it's just too easy sometimes.

 

[PureX]

What's relative to the circumstances is whether the killing is murder or just killing. Murder is absolutely wrong. Killing is not. What the Israelites did was not murder.

That's just a tautology. Basically all you're saying is "wrong (murder) is always wrong". It's true, but it's also meaningless.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

i don't believe morals exist at all Knight.

some things are absolutely wrong, to me, but i can't speak for anyone else, and you can't either.

So you disagree with fool that absolute morals exist?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because you both know that killing a baby is wrong, it isn't until you're confronted with evidence of your diety ordering it that you begin the rationalization.

How dumb are you????

If your above answer was reasonable one would think Bob and I answered the same way. We didn't! We answered in opposite ways. Why do you suppose that happened?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:chuckle: it's just too easy sometimes.

Your patting fool on the back for completely ignoring my question?

fool's response was a complete non-response, it didn't come within a mile of addressing the question I asked him which he is avoiding because it exposes his disingenuous tactics.

And you applaud this? What does that tell us about you?

 

[allsmiles]

So you disagree with fool that absolute morals exist?

no, like i said before some things are absolutely wrong.

but not for moral reasons.

morals are unnecessary when harm is being done.

that was the point of one of my previous posts, that this discussion doesn't have to be about morals when all you need to do is have an ounce of common sense... enough to observe a situation and judge the negative or positive qualities of destructive or constructive behavior.

 

[allsmiles]

Your patting fool on the back for completely ignoring my question?

fool's response was a complete non-response, it didn't come within a mile of addressing the question I asked him which he is avoiding because it exposes his disingenuous tactics.

And you applaud this? What does that tell us about you?

depends on who you mean by us.

there are those here who agree with you and those who don't.

 

[fool]

How dumb are you????

If your above answer was reasonable one would think Bob and I answered the same way. We didn't! We answered in opposite ways. Why do you suppose that happened?

But you didn't answer in opposite ways, Bob response was much more sophisticated than yours and included some pitfalls that he thought the answer might get him into. Some pitfalls that you have lamely tried to pose in three different threads now. But Bob didn't think of the one I had in mind. Which is ironic seeing as he claims to have a sermon revolving around the question.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

no, like i said before some things are absolutely wrong.

but not for moral reasons.

morals are unnecessary when harm is being done.

You are irrational!

You can't even type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself.

fool is a MORAL absolutist. YOU are NOT. Therefore YOU disagree with fool that moral absolutes exist. :duh:

Classic!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

But you didn't answer in opposite ways, Bob response was much more sophisticated than yours and included some pitfalls that he thought the answer might get him into. Some pitfalls that you have lamely tried to pose in three different threads now. But Bob didn't think of the one I had in mind. Which is ironic seeing as he claims to have a sermon revolving around the question.

I am talking about our INITIAL answers.

My answer was "yes", Bob's was "no".

Why do you suppose we answered in opposite ways?

 

[fool]

Your patting fool on the back for completely ignoring my question?

fool's response was a complete non-response, it didn't come within a mile of addressing the question I asked him which he is avoiding because it exposes his disingenuous tactics.

And you applaud this? What does that tell us about you?

My answer was totally responsive, adressed the question, and as far as disingenuous tactics I already called you dishonest in my response to your OP in this thread. That's also not the first time I've questioned your integrity. In public. On your forum.

 

[allsmiles]

You can't even type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself.

fool is a MORAL absolutist. YOU are NOT. Therefore YOU disagree with fool that moral absolutes exist. :duh:

i misspoke when i said that morals don't exist at all. they don't exist for me. i contradicted myself then and i apologize for that.

moral absolutes can exist for whoever wishes them to exist. they exist for you, don't they?

if fool says he believes in moral absolutes then they must exist... for fool, but not for me :nono:

i'm not about to discount someone's perception of reality simply because it is not identical to my own... that goes for fool, and that goes for you too.

if you or fool or anyone else believe moral absolutes exist then they must... for you.

your perception of reality and the means by which you judge right and wrong are standards for yourself and anyone can or may agree with you. they are not proof or evidence of the falsity of my perception of reality or the means by which i judge.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Remember when you were a kid and you were wrestling some other smaller, weaker kid? And you had that kid down on the ground and he couldn't get up? And at first it was fun torturing him, acting like you were gonna drip slobber on his face. Then you smacked him around for awhile making him scream and squirm. There came a point when you lost interest in smacking him around. So you got up and walked away. Without fail that kid would jump back up and try and fight you again even though he knew he was totally defeated and it wouldn't be long before you were back on top of him dropping slobber onto his red with anger face.

Do you remember those days?