• 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!

2 women allegedly killed by relatives for kiss seen in online video

TypicalRussian said:
what do you mean by possible words

no its nit boring, it is great

what disservice?
Click to expand...

Possible words. Because a word with no vowels could be many different words, even in context.

You have not been to a saturday service for 3.5 hours at shul. It is boring as hell.

And you are doing yourself a disservice by both overestimating your own abilities and your absolutism. Your arguments, such that they are, have massive gaping holes in them. You might be able to fill some of them in if you developed your critical thinking and analytical capabilities.

But instead your posts are essentially Internet archetypes of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
 
Last edited:
TypicalRussian said:
no they are not immoral, they have proven to work
Click to expand...

Not really. Are you saying there was no immorality when people were following the Word of God

Is burning heretics immoral?
 
TypicalRussian said:
there will never be economic equality
Click to expand...

So what? If we can raise living standards for everyone, why does it matter that some people are better off than others? Isn’t that better than everyone suffering in equal poverty together?
 
CJ 2.0 said:
So what? If we can raise living standards for everyone, why does it matter that some people are better off than others? Isn’t that better than everyone suffering in equal poverty together?
Click to expand...

we have been doing that cj
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Possible words. Because a word with no vowels could be many different words, even in context.

You have not been to a saturday service for 3.5 hours at shul. It is boring as hell.

And you are doing yourself a disservice by both overestimating your own abilities and your absolutism. Your arguments, such that they are, have massive gaping holes in them. You might be able to fill some of them in if you developed your critical thinking and analytical capabilities.

But instead your posts are essentially Internet archetypes of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Click to expand...

what gaping holes?

i appreciate feedback and always work to better my arguments
 
TypicalRussian said:
yes it is
Click to expand...

But your version of Christianity exists because those who wanted to leverage it for power and control exerted their dominance through violence on other sects.

What do you know of Arianism vs roman Catholicism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TypicalRussian said:
what gaping holes?

i appreciate feedback and always work to better my arguments
Click to expand...

You tend to fall into absolutism and when you might benefit from a nuanced examination of the issue you often just fall i to blanket assertions.

You say morality derives from god. That is a fairly common position. Lots of people believe that. There is sufficient ambiguity about what “God” is to allow for a wide range of actual arguments that you could use to make that case.

I have different views and underlying arguments to support them but recognize I don’t know everything. If I remember my old ethics course I tend to fall into the “non-reductive naturalism” school of thought but maybe Im wrong about the branch it’s been a long time.

I liked Hume. Aristotle had some good insight but I didn’t buy all of it. Same with Mill. Not a big fan of plato. And the religious types I didn’t really buy into (Descartes, Augustine etc.).

But if you just fall into asserting all ethics derive fro. god, without any underlying argumentation, you are not really in the discussion at all.

You tend to just fall back to a base assertion without any support. That doesn’t do you favours and leaves a lot of gaps, because then any logical arguments on the other side end up being more than anything you brought to the table.

Ethics as philosophy is a really deep, interesting and potentially spiritual discussion. I would suggest you put your existing belief that all ethics come from god to one side (don’t abandon it, just put it aside to allow for exploration of others’ perceptions) and read a few good philosophers. Many of the books were published for schools so have notes in them as well where interpretation of archaic phrasing or language is necessary for self study.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
You tend to fall into absolutism and when you might benefit from a nuanced examination of the issue you often just fall i to blanket assertions.

You say morality derives from god. That is a fairly common position. Lots of people believe that. There is sufficient ambiguity about what “God” is to allow for a wide range of actual arguments that you could use to make that case.

I have different views and underlying arguments to support them but recognize I don’t know everything. If I remember my old ethics course I tend to fall into the “non-reductive naturalism” school of thought but maybe Im wrong about the branch it’s been a long time.

I liked Hume. Aristotle had some good insight but I didn’t buy all of it. Same with Mill. Not a big fan of plato. And the religious types I didn’t really buy into (Descartes, Augustine etc.).

But if you just fall into asserting all ethics derive fro. god, without any underlying argumentation, you are not really in the discussion at all.

You tend to just fall back to a base assertion without any support. That doesn’t do you favours and leaves a lot of gaps, because then any logical arguments on the other side end up being more than anything you brought to the table.

Ethics as philosophy is a really deep, interesting and potentially spiritual discussion. I would suggest you put your existing belief that all ethics come from god to one side (don’t abandon it, just put it aside to allow for exploration of others’ perceptions) and read a few good philosophers. Many of the books were published for schools so have notes in them as well where interpretation of archaic phrasing or language is necessary for self study.
Click to expand...

i have plentyl of different views too, i am economically left but strongly believe in traditional values
 
CJ 2.0 said:
But your version of Christianity exists because those who wanted to leverage it for power and control exerted their dominance through violence on other sects.

What do you know of Arianism vs roman Catholicism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

arianism has been dead for a looooooooooooooooong time
 
TypicalRussian said:
arianism has been dead for a looooooooooooooooong time
Click to expand...

Yes I know. But why was it “wrong” where catholicism was “right” from a moral perspective?

As whether Arianism or Catholicism prevailed was a matter of how human beings interacted and behaved (eg, what would have happened if Constantine was hit by a stray arrow or died of disease), and as Aroanism was persecuted to oblivion (immorally), how can you possibly say that current Christianity is correct? And if it isn’t correct, its morality is not from god, but from those who implement it.
 
TypicalRussian said:
i have plentyl of different views too, i am economically left but strongly believe in traditional values
Click to expand...

Those are different. I am talking about different perspectives on morality. Where you just assert without support.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Those are different. I am talking about different perspectives on morality. Where you just assert without support.
Click to expand...
We have an innate sense of moral. It is a gift from God. Some neglect using it, so far so they may begin to claim there is no such a thing.
 
MeSoNe said:
We have an innate sense of moral. It is a gift from God. Some neglect using it, so far so they may begin to claim there is no such a thing.
Click to expand...

If we have an innate sense, whether it is from god or otherwise, it means it is up to us to use it and to figure out what is right.

The cause of our sense of morality in that conception is not really relevant and allows for all different sorts of moral philosophy, including relativism (after all of a person is a relativist and all human senses of morality are innate and derived from god, it follows that god intended for that person to have an innate sense that moral relativism is moral).
 
CJ 2.0 said:
If we have an innate sense, whether it is from god or otherwise, it means it is up to us to use it and to figure out what is right.

The cause of our sense of morality in that conception is not really relevant and allows for all different sorts of moral philosophy, including relativism (after all of a person is a relativist and all human senses of morality are innate and derived from god, it follows that god intended for that person to have an innate sense that moral relativism is moral).
Click to expand...
I didn't say innate sense. I said 'innate sense of moral'. We both know what I mean by a sense of moral.

Sent from my FIG-LX1 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom