TakeYouToTasker Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Ok, what does that have to do with morality being subjective? One can find something to be morally repugnant and still believe it to be subjective. That's where you two are getting tripped up. We aren't getting tripped up, you're simply advocating for an absurd position in which all opinions hold equal weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 We aren't getting tripped up, you're simply advocating for an absurd position in which all opinions hold equal weight. Copy and paste the part to where I advocated "for an absurd position in which all opinions hold equal weight" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 told ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Copy and paste the part to where I advocated "for an absurd position in which all opinions hold equal weight" If that's not your agument, then you're engaging in special pleading, which is a logical fallacy. It's either one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Ok, what does that have to do with morality being subjective? One can find something to be morally repugnant and still believe it to be subjective. That's where you two are getting tripped up. But then it's morally repugnant to just one person, and who made you the arbiter of what is morally repugnant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 But then it's morally repugnant to just one person, and who made you the arbiter of what is morally repugnant? I did. It's my opinion. I'm allowed to believe what I want to believe. Hence, morality being subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 If that's not your agument, then you're engaging in special pleading, which is a logical fallacy. It's either one or the other. From that and Godel's proof, it follows that morality itself is logically fallacious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) If that's not your agument, then you're engaging in special pleading, which is a logical fallacy. It's either one or the other. You made the assertion, naturally I'd like for you to back it up. From that and Godel's proof, it follows that morality itself is logically fallacious. yes, at it's core, morality is logically fallacious. Edited March 17, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 You made the assertion, naturally I'd like for you to back it up. yes, at it's core, morality is logically fallacious. I'm going to assume you don't know what special pleading is if you aren't following along? Special Pleading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) I did. It's my opinion. I'm allowed to believe what I want to believe. Hence, morality being subjective. Do you not see that you are arguing that your opinion of what is moral or not is irrelevant if someone else believes differently? I truly am trying to have a conversation here FYI. I've certainly earned a reputation for playing games with folks and being ridiculous, but I'm not in this instance. Edited March 17, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) I'm going to assume you don't know what special pleading is if you aren't following along? Special Pleading I'm still waiting for you to show me where I advocated "for an absurd position in which all opinions hold equal weight" You made the claim, lets see it. Do you not see that you are arguing that your opinion of what is moral or not is irrelevant if someone else believes differently? I'm not sure how you aren't understanding this, it really isn't that difficult. Edited March 17, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I'm still waiting for you to show me where I You made the claim, lets see it. I'm not sure how you aren't understanding this, it really isn't that difficult. I understand everything. You clearly do not. Let me try to demonstrate. Man A says it is moral to own slaves, because he is giving him a better life than what he would have had in his homeland. Man B says it's immoral to own slaves, because man has the right to self-determination. Your argument would support that the morality of both positions is equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I understand everything. You clearly do not. Let me try to demonstrate. Man A says it is moral to own slaves, because he is giving him a better life than what he would have had in his homeland. Man B says it's immoral to own slaves, because man has the right to self-determination. Your argument would support that the morality of both positions is equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Show me where I'm misunderstanding. Man A says morality is subjective. Who is Man B to call him immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I understand everything. You clearly do not. Let me try to demonstrate. Man A says it is moral to own slaves, because he is giving him a better life than what he would have had in his homeland. Man B says it's immoral to own slaves, because man has the right to self-determination. Your argument would support that the morality of both positions is equal. [This is an automated response.] Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 [This is an automated response.] Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7. No, that's exactly the logical conclusion of his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 This is an actual, real, serious headline at Huffington Post: "Republicans Are Crying About Obamacare Problems They Helped Create." Typical, simple-minded leftist rhetoric. Only one party created the problems that came from Obamacare because only one party voted for it. You have to be a dumbass of epic proportions to believe that headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Another great article from the times article n how pulling the plug on health care will ruin so many of the same people that voted for Trump. They say he needs to keep his promise. Guess they never heard of what Trump University was all about https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/health/republicans-health-care-affordable-care-act-midwest.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 "If Congress moves ahead with the House version of the bill, vulnerable voters might find some allies within the health industry: Hospitals that serve the rural regions in what could be called Trump country would be particularly vulnerable. Their patients tend to be older, poorer and sicker, and their profit margins much narrower, if they make any profit at all. Mike Abrams, president and chief executive of the Ohio Hospital Association, worries that repeal of the health law could force some hospitals to close. “But honestly,” he said, “even if they didn’t close, they would have to make some decisions that would be unwelcome by the community.” At Defiance Regional, where Mr. Waltimire, the injured police officer, gets his care, Medicaid provides 22 percent of the revenue, up from 15 percent before the Affordable Care Act took effect. The 25-bed hospital, part of the ProMedica Health System in Toledo, has expanded mental health services and is adding a second medical office building. Randy Oostra, ProMedica’s president and chief executive, said the Republican proposal to give states a fixed amount of money for each person on Medicaid, instead of a large share of whatever each state needs to spend, would be particularly wrenching. “It will drive down reimbursement over time, and we’re going to start stripping care away,” Mr. Oostra said. “They may have Medicaid, but it’ll be so stripped down that they basically won’t have coverage.” " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) This is an actual, real, serious headline at Huffington Post: "Republicans Are Crying About Obamacare Problems They Helped Create." Typical, simple-minded leftist rhetoric. Only one party created the problems that came from Obamacare because only one party voted for it. You have to be a dumbass of epic proportions to believe that headline. i dont usually read huffpo for the same reason i dont usually respond to your posts: both are hopelessly partisan but for anyone else that wants to discuss this, huffpo might have a case on this one. those risk corridors were important elements of the total plan and i recall it being a big issue of concern at the time. the expansion of medicade was the other huge issue, and it was entirely republican governors that refused to extend that safety net for their states im no expert on this topic like magox but i was very concerned about those two things and i viewed them as intentional sabotage by the republicans. both of these elements have the ability to cripple the program, which i believe is what republicans intended, as disgusting as that is. so it appears huffpo may have a valid point despite their extreme partisan bias it would be interesting to hear comments about this from the three or four nonpartisan members here Edited March 19, 2017 by Meathead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 The White House posted a moving video Friday morning of a doctor whose patients have been “adversely affected” by the significant downsides to Obamacare. Dr. Robin Armstrong has been on both sides of the healthcare debate, however, as his wife is a breast cancer survivor. https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse/videos/1252187841535613/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts