Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
36 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 877,940 Year: 9,688/23,288 Month: 703/1,544 Week: 95/322 Day: 15/80 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal morality
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 72 of 196 (393237)
04-04-2007 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
04-04-2007 12:23 AM


Leo Strauss is of little significance compared to Socrates and Sartre and Heidegger. I intentionally wrote it that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2007 12:23 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2007 12:41 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded
 Message 76 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-04-2007 8:11 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 104 of 196 (393617)
04-06-2007 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
04-04-2007 7:32 PM


Prediction:
quote:
In anticipating your response as a given (Didn't have to think about this): No, neo-conservatism is not important.

Crashfrog's actual response:

quote:
I don't, really. But the degree to which the thought of Strauss has affected the modern American political landscape, particularly modern conservatism, means that it's idiotic to assert that Strauss is some kind of insignificant figure.

LOL

I am obviously not ignorant of Leo Strauss. How could you say such a thing where I've written everything you know about him in a nutshell?

quote:
Do you have a reply to my arguments, or not?

I'm sorry. You have an argument?

If a person believes an action is wrong and another believes it to be right, who is right?

Did you read my post equating morality to knowledge. It might help your distorted worldview. I was not simply calling you names. I was encouraging you to actually read the books of the names you throw around like you know what you're talking about.

You haven't the slightest idea what morality is. You've never truly studied it. Is it wrong to let others know that you have no authority on the subject?

Attack my response to Stile please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2007 7:32 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by kuresu, posted 04-06-2007 1:16 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 107 of 196 (393622)
04-06-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by fallacycop
04-06-2007 1:10 AM


quote:
I may have had one or two one night stands in my entire life. If I said I didn`t enjoy them, I would be lying. So why haven`t I had any more? simply put, I enjoy long term relationships even more. But other people may have different inclinations. I don`t feel the need to label their behaviour as immoral, though. If a couple decides to have a one-time-fling, how does that hurt me or anybody else? How could I honestly lable their behaviour as immoral?

That behaviour is immoral for a variety of reasons. You destroy any self-worth you had. You fulfill a basic animalistic tendency which is not of any worth. Mill calls these type of pleasures that all animals enjoy "lesser pleasures". I elaborate on that by saying they are indeed, lesser because he in fact did not refer to them as lesser in regards to their value. You do not actually love the person that you use. This degrades the value of love. By having a "one-time-fling" solely for immediate gratification and not founded on love you only hurt yourself. You make yourself sick. Someone told me ignorance is not bliss and for the sake of humanity I must believe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 1:10 AM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 04-06-2007 1:44 AM a servant of Christ has responded
 Message 112 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 2:07 AM a servant of Christ has responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 110 of 196 (393627)
04-06-2007 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by ringo
04-06-2007 1:44 AM


quote:
No more than ice cream degrades the value of food. An occasional one-scoop stand isn't the end of the world.

This is not true at all. Granted, it takes a great deal of reasoning to understand this it is no excuse for this peddling of perversion.
It is not okay for man to do good and bad. A truly good man has the knowledge, can measure the good and the bad and can never do wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 04-06-2007 1:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 04-06-2007 2:42 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 111 of 196 (393628)
04-06-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by anglagard
04-06-2007 1:46 AM


If I didn't consider their well-being I would've stopped posting by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by anglagard, posted 04-06-2007 1:46 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 113 of 196 (393630)
04-06-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by fallacycop
04-06-2007 2:07 AM


Definition from Doing Philosophy.

quote:
Appeal to Authority- We often try to support our views by citing experts. This sort of appeal to authority is perfectly valid provided that the person cited really is an expert in the field in question.

LOL

"appeal to authority" fallacy? Judging that J.S. Mill is an authority on morality having fathered utilitarianism I guess I'm not guilty. Is this a joke? This is a joke. I'm discussing morality with people that are wanton about knowledge.

Your immorality will catch up on you.

Maybe, if you have time, you can mix the study of human knowledge in with your memorization of fallacies. Especially because you can't reason out the fallacy you incorrectly memorized.

Edited by -messenjah of one, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 2:07 AM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 2:42 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 114 of 196 (393631)
04-06-2007 2:36 AM


I'm sorry fallacy cop I didn't mean to hurt your feelings if you were hurt. My tone in the previous post was a little judgmental. I'm not sure why I became so defensive. Well, you will see the flaw in your memorization.

I think I'm going to stop posting now at this point. Thanks for listening.


Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 2:53 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020