Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

So you're of the opinion that morality is subjective?

 

Morality changes throughout history. That's not a revolutionary statement, it's fact. And if you judge the past using the modern lens, you'll always be misled. 

 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Morality changes throughout history. That's not a revolutionary statement, it's fact.

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there.

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

And if you judge the past using the modern lens, you'll always be misled. 

But I do think I see how this could be possible, though I believe if you think carefully and keep a level head you can avoid it.

Posted
1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there.

 

3 months ago, no one wore a mask to go to the grocery store.

It is now immoral to do so.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 4
Posted
27 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there

 

You're diametrically opposed to a basic fact? It's not an issue of opinion. 

 

But that's because somewhere you had a Marxist teacher, or you've fallen under the spell of critical theory in all its toxic forms. Slavery existed since the beginning of time. It existed long before Columbus came here, it existed long after he shuffled off this mortal coil. Expecting a man to completely change -- not just his own perspective, but that of the entire world, based on modern moralities and ideologies is dishonest to its core. It does not illuminate truth of the past, it hides it and buries it under nonsense. 

 

30 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

But I do think I see how this could be possible, though I believe if you think carefully and keep a level head you can avoid it.

 

Keeping a level would mean not being diametrically opposed to a fact ;) :beer: 

Posted
44 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right so go off the cartoon the implication is that the pulling down of Columbus' statue leads to Communism could you tell me how?

 

 


No I took it to mean be mindful of your idols. 

Posted
38 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there.

 

The implicit statement in all these ethnocentric declarations is "if I lived in that time I would be against it."

 

The only thing you're actually communicating is that you don't understand moral psychology and you want to feel/signal moral superiority.

 

The truth is you have no idea how you would have felt had you been raised in different times under different circumstances. Any suggestion to the contrary is hubris.

  • Like (+1) 7
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

The implicit statement in all these ethnocentric declarations is "if I lived in that time I would be against it."

 

The only thing you're actually communicating is that you don't understand moral psychology and you want to feel/signal moral superiority.

 

The truth is you have no idea how you would have felt had you been raised in different times under different circumstances. Any suggestion to the contrary is hubris.

 
Another @Deranged Rhino handle - you go bro

Posted
35 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

3 months ago, no one wore a mask to go to the grocery store.

It is now immoral to do so.

 

 

I'm sorry but you kind of missed the point all together. What your describing is more a change in circumstance than a change in perception.

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You're diametrically opposed to a basic fact? It's not an issue of opinion. 

I'd say it's rather obvious I don't consider it to be a fact.?

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Slavery existed since the beginning of time. It existed long before Columbus came here, it existed long after he shuffled off this mortal coil.

and I'd say it has always been wrong even when society deemed it to be acceptable.

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It does not illuminate truth of the past, it hides it and buries it under nonsense. 

what exactly does it hide?

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:


No I took it to mean be mindful of your idols. 

Then I guess we just viewed it differently.

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

 

The implicit statement in all these ethnocentric declarations is "if I lived in that time I would be against it."

 

The only thing you're actually communicating is that you don't understand moral psychology and you want to feel/signal moral superiority.

 

The truth is you have no idea how you would have felt had you been raised in different times under different circumstances. Any suggestion to the contrary is hubris.

No if I'd been born in raised in those times I'd be pretty likely to believe in all those things like average person of those times, it wouldn't make me right though.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there.


How can you be diametrically opposed to the reality that human morality has changed throughout the course of human history?

 

The entire concept of morality has been fluid throughout human‘s social development and levels of interaction over the last six million years or so.

 

The introduction of modern religions designate a clear shift in moral attitudes, the Stoics and later the Enlightenment another, as the modern concepts of human freedom as a virtue didn‘t even exist until that point.
 

And the reason they didn’t exist?  Until that point life was too hard, and too brutal, for individuals to spend much, if any, time engaged in developing moral philosophy.
 

Until Locke presented his argument, it was generally presumed that the proper moral order was that everyone existed under the absolute rule of a monarch who derived his power directly from the Divine.


Believing that none of this is true is an outright rejection of the realities of human history.

 

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
  • Like (+1) 5
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted

When the mob tears down a statue it is an act of anarchy. If a city council or legislature determines that a statue be torn down it is not an act of anarchy. Communism is born out of anarchy. Many of the people who are presently committing anarchism have freely admitted that they are Marxist. It's no great leap to figure out what's going on.

  • Thank you (+1) 4
Posted


 

I cannot believe that a simple cartoon needs to be explained. 
 

FIRST, the fact that it is Columbus really doesn’t enter into it, other than the fact that it was the last one done two days ago 

 

all your posts about him are superfluous squirrels 

 

The liberal mob tearing down statue after statue, without any public support, because they disagree with them is how Socialism operates.  
 

 

Think. 
 

 

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
Just now, Warcodered said:

I'd say it's rather obvious I don't consider it to be a fact.?

 

 

Being wrong about a fact doesn't suddenly make it an opinion. If morality wasn't an ever changing construct in history you could prove it. But you cannot. While I can prove, very easily, that it is. 

 

You're wrong. All the way. 

 

Just now, Warcodered said:

and I'd say it has always been wrong even when society deemed it to be acceptable.

 

You can say this because you were born into a world where slavery was deemed a moral evil. That took hundreds of years to change, and one of the bloodiest wars in our nation's history. Which, of course, only proves my point. 

2 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

No if I'd been born in raised in those times I'd be pretty likely to believe in all those things like average person of those times, it wouldn't make me right though.

 

But it wouldn't make you evil, or unworthy of your place in history. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

When the mob tears down a statue it is an act of anarchy. If a city council or legislature determines that a statue be torn down it is not an act of anarchy. Communism is born out of anarchy. Many of the people who are presently committing anarchism have freely admitted that they are Marxist. It's no great leap to figure out what's going on.


It’s not anarchy, it’s a communist revolution.

 

Anarchy is building a shed without a permit, or drinking raw milk sold to you by a neighbor in a non-State sanctioned currency without paying taxes, or hunting or fishing without a license.

  • Thank you (+1) 4
Posted
26 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:


How can you be diametrically opposed to the reality that human morality has changed throughout the course of human history?

 

The entire concept of morality has been fluid throughout human‘s social development and levels of interaction over the last six million years or so.

 

The introduction of modern religions designate a clear shift in moral attitudes, the Stoics and later the Enlightenment another, as the modern concepts of human freedom as a virtue didn‘t even exist until that point.
 

And the reason they didn’t exist?  Until that point life was too hard, and too brutal, for individuals to spend much, if any, time engaged in developing moral philosophy.
 

Until Locke presented his argument, it was generally presumed that the proper moral order was that everyone existed under the absolute rule of a monarch who derived his power directly from the Divine.


Believing that none of this is true is an outright rejection of the realities of human history.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Being wrong about a fact doesn't suddenly make it an opinion. If morality wasn't an ever changing construct in history you could prove it. But you cannot. While I can prove, very easily, that it is. 

 

You're wrong. All the way. 

 

 

You can say this because you were born into a world where slavery was deemed a moral evil. That took hundreds of years to change, and one of the bloodiest wars in our nation's history. Which, of course, only proves my point. 

 

But it wouldn't make you evil, or unworthy of your place in history. 

I'd say what I'm arguing is the existence and separation of intrinsic morality from a historic cultural morality.

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

I'd say what I'm arguing is the existence and separation of intrinsic morality from a historic cultural morality.

 


If that’s true, then show me how this “intrinsic morality” has existed unchanged throughout time. 
 

Give me philosophers, or literature, or any minds that cross the chasm of history all citing the same intrinsic morality. 
 

... You can’t do it, because what you’re arguing doesn’t exist. You’re taking our modern morality and saying it’s the peak, and will never be changed, evolve, or be re-examined by future generations of philosophers and humans. 

  • Awesome! (+1) 2
×
×
  • Create New...