• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Duggars expecting SIXTEENTH grandchild. Great example for young people.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Angel said:
Oy! The "moral" of the story refers to the lesson or point of the story. In the case of Aesop's fables, the moral in this sense is written out below the tale, as I do in my faux fable. See if you can find it.
Click to expand...

Except your "fable" is rather immoral rather than moral. No matter how you dress it up.
 
Angel said:
The fact is, there is no specific reference to any Aesop fable in my post. Your discovery of a fable about a dove and an ant is Mr King going off point and getting preachy about it.
Click to expand...

You didn't? Must be someone else called Angel who wrote (and I quote):

Meanwhile you say nothing of the moral of Aesop's Last Fable. Very telling, that!
Click to expand...

No, you preach, I contend you misuse a well meaning fable into something that is more of an attack piece than a moral story.
 
Angel said:
Yes, by all means keep lamo employed. The mascot of the Miley Cyrus Cult.
About this "prove" biz, a kind of verbal tic so-called "skeptics" acquire after too much time wasted in the Beliefs and Skepticism forum, nothing but mathematics can be "proved" -- you can't even prove that you exist, no one can, so stop with the "prove" biz, yes?

I did, however, post arguments for the objectivity of morality. Did you not see them? They're re-posted on this or the previous pages.
Click to expand...

Oooh goodoo, there is your Miley Cyrus obsession again.

So you cannot make your opinion that it is objective believable? Or make a convincing case that you are correct and others who disagree with you are wrong?

Yes, and I posted arguments that go against the objectivity and endorse the concept that it is subjective.
 
Angel said:
So what? Please stop with the dictionaries. They just record uses. They are not authoritative except as records of usage. Don't you have anything of your own to say? What about the analogy I posted? Doesn't that help you understand the thesis you're throwing dictionaries at?
Click to expand...
Yup dictionaries record uses and that's why we use them because they ARE authoritative.
You cannot make up your own definition of words and think they will have any meaning to anyone else.
 
roguenuke said:
That was not universally thought. It was simply believed by a majority, who at the time did not have the means to study it more in depth or even to really question openly the beliefs that were held.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Before people had time to study the motions of the world/sun it was universally thought. Go back to the dawn of civilization and there was no way for anyone to conceive of it differently.
 
Quag said:
Not lost morality and emotion are both subjective
Click to expand...

And so it continues:

Quag: Morality is subjective
Rest of room: No it's not. Here's why not
Quag: Morality is subjective..
Rest of Room. No, and here is another example of why it isn't.
Quag: Morality is subjective.
Rest of Room: Here are case studies, links, sources showing why morality is objective
Quag: Morality is subjective.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill"
 
Mashmont said:
And so it continues:

Quag: Morality is subjective
Rest of room: No it's not. Here's why not
Quag: Morality is subjective..
Rest of Room. No, and here is another example of why it isn't.
Quag: Morality is subjective.
Rest of Room: Here are case studies, links, sources showing why morality is objective
Quag: Morality is subjective.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill"
Click to expand...

Again, speak for yourself debate loser, you don't speak for the rest of the room. Quag is right, you are not.
 
Peter King said:
Again, speak for yourself debate loser, you don't speak for the rest of the room. Quag is right, you are not.
Click to expand...

But notice Quag never offers anything. He just keeps putting his hands over his ears and repeats the same old disproven drivel.
 
zyzygy said:
Irony meters explode!
Click to expand...

I explained and used numerous examples as to why morality is objective. Your boy repeats the same mantra without offering discussion, evidence, or proof.
 
Mashmont said:
I explained and used numerous examples as to why morality is objective. Your boy repeats the same mantra without offering discussion, evidence, or proof.
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten you're on record as telling others you refuse to meet Burden of Proof, and shift that Burden of Proof to those who ask you to meet your Burden of Proof ?
 
Mashmont said:
I explained and used numerous examples as to why morality is objective. Your boy repeats the same mantra without offering discussion, evidence, or proof.
Click to expand...

Morality is subjective. No humans, no morality. My boy? I don't know him. I just happen to know that morality is subjective. I posted a couple of learned articles on the subject.
 
Morality is a man-made concept. Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."

Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

Is morality subjective? | Debate.org
 
Quag said:
Yup dictionaries record uses and that's why we use them because they ARE authoritative.
You cannot make up your own definition of words and think they will have any meaning to anyone else.
Click to expand...
That's the way dictionaries get them: people make them up. If you want to discuss dictionaries, start a thread.
 
zyzygy said:
Morality is a man-made concept. Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."

Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

Is morality subjective? | Debate.org
Click to expand...
Not a word in your post is yours of course.
Anyway, your site shows no awareness of developments in the various sciences in the last twenty years and appears, like you, only to be pushing an anti-religious brief.
 
zyzygy said:
Morality is subjective. No humans, no morality. My boy? I don't know him. I just happen to know that morality is subjective. I posted a couple of learned articles on the subject.
Click to expand...

You're twenty years behind in your science reading. Start with Frans de Waal's work in primatology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom