|
Post by MrNice on Apr 20, 2009 18:23:00 GMT -5
this BS has been refuted many times and its getting tiresome again, if you want to have intelligent debate, you will have to address the arguments that people present to you instead of repeating your ignorant opinions over and over
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 21, 2009 4:32:25 GMT -5
This is not a liberal college debate. I'm going to use absolutes, like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 21, 2009 9:04:04 GMT -5
you are not using absolutes you have stated the above nonsense several times, and several times you have been refuted if you are going to insist on using your own definition of moral relativism have fun fighting your straw man, but its silly to consider it a debate at all
if you think you are making witty points or coming out on top by repeating this nonsense over and over I can assure you that this is not convincing to anyone that does not already share (zealously) these ignorant beliefs
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 21, 2009 19:54:34 GMT -5
Naptaq --------------- This is not a liberal college debate. I'm going to use absolutes, like it or not. What the heck does that even mean?? Should I take it as a compliment that you seem to be implying only liberals are capable of a fair and logical debate? Being unable to understand a simple concept is not an "absolute;" it's just plain old-fashioned ignorance. Past a certain point, "stupidity" becomes a more accurate term for when someone actually refuses to be educated. A debate is a debate. A scenario in which one person sits there and says "I'm right because I say so! That is an absolute!" over and over is NOT a debate. Also: - A debate IS about discussing ideas on their actual merits.
- A debate is NOT one guy preaching to an adoring audience.
- A debate is NOT an opportunity to pull assertions out of your butt and force the opponent to accept them as true "absolutes."
- A debate is NOT about showboating, one-upmanship, or shouting catchphrases at your opponent. 'Cause here's a secret: most people in the real world are not as awed by those tactics as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh might lead you to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Apr 22, 2009 1:26:28 GMT -5
if anyone wants to learn proper online debate guidelines or practice it with people who take it seriously... Online Debate Network Forumsjust don't forget about us!
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 22, 2009 15:10:42 GMT -5
What the heck does that even mean?? Should I take it as a compliment that you seem to be implying only liberals are capable of a fair and logical debate? I'm citing a well known fact that colleges have mostly liberal to far-left professors. They even employ radicals like the former domestic terrorist Mr. Ayers. Unfortunately, when you have these professors, the students aren't thought to think but to reiterate back to the professor his opinions. Are you saying that everybody must subscribe to moral relativism? Because that's what your 'education' sounds like. The usual secular-progressive college professor indoctrination. No thanks. My claim is that moral relativism can be extremly destructive. That's pretty clear. And the deal with the absolute is that people behave more responsibly if they know they're accountable to an Absolute Law, not just a "I'm off the hook if nobody saw me did it" law. [/li][li]A debate is NOT about showboating, one-upmanship, or shouting catchphrases at your opponent. 'Cause here's a secret: most people in the real world are not as awed by those tactics as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh might lead you to believe.[/quote] Well - no matter what you wrote - I'm honored to be mentioned along with O'Reilly and Limbaugh.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 22, 2009 15:35:43 GMT -5
this is not moral relativism
since you don't know what moral relativism is, then your claim is meaningless. That's pretty clear.
its very clear that they don't you think they should - but they don't there is a difference
people, like you, that believe in absolute law are just as likely to lie cheat steal and murder (and all those other atrocious things) as those that don't
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 22, 2009 15:41:14 GMT -5
no only you insist on being ignorant but you also aim to be a douchebag? I am sure you know o'reilly was sued for sexual harassment
|
|
|
Post by skyhint on Apr 23, 2009 0:49:35 GMT -5
My game is in weekly maintenance I'm going to discribe what my understanding of moral relativism is. It is not "I can do whatever I want because I say so". It is "If I can think of a good logical reason to do it and I cannot think of a good logical reason not to do it after intense searching, then it is OK to do it" and "because I say so" does not fit the bill of a good logical reason to do something. Usually, when you are deciding what corse of action to take you should ask yourself "will this hurt anybody?", "How would I feel if someone else did this to me?" and "will this action have a positive inpact on the world/society"
So lets look at some examples: killing people: "will this hurt anybody?" Answer:Yes, so this is not moral behaviour. But what if I am a soldier and killing someone will help put an end to a war and thus save many lives? then ask: "will this action have a positive inpact on the world/society" Answer: Yes. So in some circumstances killing can be justified.
Now you might wonder about people who lack the ability to put society's needs before their own. We call this antisocial behaviour or psychopathic behaviour. You might be inclined to think that the acceptance of moral relativism leads people towards pschopathic behaviour but in fact the thought process of a psychopath does not echo the idea of having a positive impact on the world which is promoted by moral relativism.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 6, 2009 7:18:46 GMT -5
So Roman Polanski, 30 years ago rapes a 13 year old girl and then escapes the authorities to Europe. Now that the coward was finally arrested, look who's got his back? His far-left Hollywood buddies, the bedrock of moral relativism, support his release. Whoopie even said it wasn't rape-rape. What? Let me get this straight: You commit a serious crime, you flee from authority, and yet Hollywood in general sees nothing wrong with it? Infact you're the good guy and the authorities are the bad guy.. total reversal.
|
|
|
Post by madiocre on Nov 24, 2010 7:05:01 GMT -5
I dont know much about this but didnt the victim come out and file a move to drop charges against him ? If so dosn't that say that perhaps the whole thing was a little more complicated ?
|
|
|
Post by maineguy78 on Jan 26, 2012 22:13:38 GMT -5
The argument about moral relativism too often gets framed as one between secularism and religion, or left vs. right. I'm a left-wing atheist who opposes moral relativism. Below is an interview with Slavoj Zizek, an atheist, Marxist philosopher who opposes moral relativism (for a more detailed explanation of his case against relativism, check out his book "The Fragile Absolute"):
|
|