ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[fool]

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!

So what?
Me and him are both standing against you who want to smote the infants.

 

[allsmiles]

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?

:shocked:

no... i don't... that's really messed up

you were like that as a kid?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So what?

Yeah... so what if allsmiles is irrational???? :rotfl:

allsmiles..... fool just affirmed you are irrational. :hammer:

 

[fool]

I am talking about our INITIAL answers.

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

Why do you suppose we answered in opposite ways?

See my previous response.

 

[Lucky]

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

Unfortunately, not everyone believes murder is wrong.

 

[allsmiles]

Yeah... so what if allsmiles is irrational???? :rotfl:

allsmiles..... fool just affirmed you are irrational. :hammer:

crazy as a fox :hammer:

did you really use to pick on kids who were smaller than you?

and i have to be honest... i've been kinda steamed at you since the banning, i've been giving you a hard time because i'm immature and thought that i'd "get you good" or something.

i dunno.

i believe absolute wrongs do exist.

i do not believe absolute morality exists.

therefore i must disagree with fool.

 

[fool]

See my previous response.

Here

 

[allsmiles]

i believe absolute wrongs do exist.

i do not believe absolute morality exists.

therefore i must disagree with fool.

but for that matter i have to agree with fool that it doesn't make any difference, in that we're both standing against you.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

See my previous response.

Your previous response was entirely insufficient.

 

[fool]

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?

Yes, I was the younger brother.
When my muscles came in I taped together some iron re-bars my dad had around and I started pressing them. I stayed after school and worked out in the weight room and during the summer I took the first money I made stocking fruit and bought a membership to a gym. And now I can take those re-bars I lifted a teenager and bend them with my bare hands. What's your point?

 

[fool]

Yeah... so what if allsmiles is irrational???? :rotfl:

allsmiles..... fool just affirmed you are irrational. :hammer:

Wrong.

 

[fool]

Your previous response was entirely insufficient.

You're gonna need to show why.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

but for that matter i have to agree with fool that it doesn't make any difference, in that we're both standing against you.

Two knuckle-heads cheering one another on.... "yippee, yippee we're irrational!" :chuckle:

 

[fool]

Two knuckle-heads cheering one another on.... "yippee, yippee we're irrational!" :chuckle:

We're standing against those that would butcher children in their Deities name.
If that's Irrational, then fine.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You're gonna need to show why.

I already did!

I stated in post #111 "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?"

And then you stated...

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.

To which I responded....

I am talking about our INITIAL answers.

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

Why do you suppose we answered in opposite ways?

 

[Lucky]

Killing a baby that could just as well as been brought home and put on the floor with the rest of your kids.

So you believe killing is absolutely wrong under certain and specific conditions. Knight believes killing is absolutely wrong under certain and specific conditions. I say you two should join forces against the moral relativists who say killing is never absolutely wrong under any condition.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So you believe killing is absolutely wrong under certain and specific conditions. Knight believes killing is absolutely wrong under certain and specific conditions. I say you two should join forces against the moral relativists who say killing is never absolutely wrong under any condition.

Lookout allsmiles!!!!

 

[Lucky]

But then they can't use their beloved "Christians argue amongst themselves, we atheists don't, so our worldview is superior" argument. :skeptic:

(I'm not sure if allsmiles or fool have ever used that kind of argument, but I know it has been made on TOL.)

 

[Balder]

This discussion is really classic. Knight apparently has a limited understanding of moral relativism and doesn't realize he and Bob are espousing a form of it.

The idea that it is "okay" to purposefully cut down civilians (infants, children, women, elders) in their homes and villages "because it's wartime" is reprehensible to me. I can't believe it's seriously being defended. But of course, it has to be defended, because it is recorded with approval in the Bible and therefore -- according to the narrow interpretive lens some people unfortunately believe is necessary -- it must be okay and morally justifiable.

If these Christians believe it's a crime to kill children, except when it's war time (and then it's okay to cut them up with swords), then they seriously undermine their own moral standing when they condemn those who support another conditional argument that it is sometimes okay to kill children -- in the form of abortion. The chants of "baby killers" are coming back to haunt this lot!

 

[allsmiles]

We're standing against those that would butcher children in their Deities name.
If that's Irrational, then fine.

i left a lengthy post for our friend genuineoriginal in which i cited the Art of War.

Sun Tzu, a master strategist taught that a general should never allow or introduce superstitions into warfare. he also taught that attacking cities was the last resort of both strategy and morals. he taught that a general must first master his own humanity and sense of justice before going into battle. he also taught that victory should be accomplished with the least amount of blood shed possible, he taught that it was the pinnacle of skill. he also taught innovative ways to weaken the enemy without resorting to blood shed so when it did come down to the wire, the blood letting would be kept to a minimum.

any involvement on the part of the civilian population of the enemy state would go no further than plundering their stores and winning their hearts.

that Sun Tzu, a follower of the Tao, could be a greater stategist than the deity Joshua received his commands from was a point genuineoriginal could never wrap his mind around.