Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
He looks like the cartoon character that is a dog and a sheriff. What is that character's name??



Fucking red X. The picture on this page: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration/

The first time I saw his mug was on Fox's page. There was a headline about a child molester who killed a girl in Fla next to the shot. until I looked closer and saw it was adifferent story, I thought he looked the part

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hell, even male circumcision is a tough call.

Yes, but that's not a moral issue; it's a mohel issue.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I think we just identified ourselves as moral relativists, though. (I prefer "moral pragmatist," myself.) Our essential disagreement with Spanky's solution to his problem is that we don't think there is a problem.

We must have read too much Nietzche in godless liberal colleges.

I don't think there's a problem for the simple reason that all of the bases asserted in support of universal human rights is an article of faith. Some of us put our faith in God and some put it in the human race. Either way, we all have acknowledged the existence of some force that collectively drives us (admittedly some segments of "us" are driven at different rates) to increased social cooperation in the interest of mutual survival and benefit.

Why not just accept it on faith that we collectively are inherently good and not worry that we don't know exactly why?

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
He looks like the cartoon character that is a dog and a sheriff. What is that character's name??



Fucking red X. The picture on this page: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration/

Deputy Dawg?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I eat pork. Does that make me anti-Jew and anti-Christian as well? (Trifecta!)

I can't speak for the goyim, but for the Jews, it just makes you Reformed.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Something must be wrong with me because I understand most of Hank's posts.

That may be the most troubling thing you have ever posted. Even Hank doesn't understand half of what he posts.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
That. Is. Awesome.

I dunno about Spanky, but I feel bad when I hear about people I don't know being killed. I feel good when I help someone, even if I don't know her. It's odd I know, but in talking to other people, they feel similarly.

The devil, of course, is in the details, but I don't think that some higher power has something to do with it unless you define higher power as "humanity".

Well that is part of the selfish rationality. You do it because it makes you feel good. But if it made you feel bad to help people would helping people be immoral?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
All of which seems to point to the conclusion that there aren't, in fact, universal moral standards - you and many others think there are, but that is just a delusion. (In much the same way, basically, everyone here thinks that their position in any given argument is right and others only disagree because they don't fully understand it yet, but over time all sensible people will wake up and more or less agree.)

The idea that there is an objective universal truth to "morality" or whatever may be just a rationalization for feeling so strongly about something that you want to force everyone else to the same position. I think the problem you've discovered is that you have realized this is BS, but can't stomach the idea that something you feel so strongly about isn't, in fact, some great truth with an existence beyond yourself and your feelings.

So you don't care that there is Slavery in Sudan? And you think my naivete leads me to care?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So you don't care that there is Slavery in Sudan?

It appears that I am what you call a moral relativist, but this doesn't mean I feel any less strongly that slavery in the Sudan is wrong.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Reasonable people may answer them differently, but thankfully Spanky will have the correct answers. Spanky is the knower of the universal moral code.

If I had known all along that this boiled down to Spanky wanting to sleep better after telling other countries what constitutes a human rights violation, I would have pointed him to Amnesty International's website in the first place. No, sorry, they can't be right. They're saying that the USA has committed human rights violations. Shit. Let me get my universal moral code and investigate. Their human rights compass must be flawed somewhere.

Welcome to the wall. Don't pay any attention to me, though. I'm just a moron.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
However, you also have repreatedly posited that any example of a society that is pre-Judeo-Christian is not one that had a valid universal moral code. Hence my inference.

Actually, I did not say that any society that is pre-Judeo-Christian did not have a valid code. I did critize differen't cultures from having codes that were not in line with the universal code. I asserted that cultures that approve of slavery are not in line with the code. That would apply to pre and post Judeo Christian cultures. The Pre and Post Judean cultural line has never really factored into my analysis.

Originally posted by taxwonk If I misunderstood you, I apologize..

Originally posted by taxwonk You have not really offered explanations. You have rejected rational arguments for the existence of a non-divine morality, you have acknowledged that they don't make sense to you, and you have repeated that your belief in a universal morality is based upon faith in a divine source.

Yes that is true

Originally posted by taxwonk My criticism of this process is that it keeps wandering down tangents. Once the tangents are stretched to the point where it becomes apparent they are not relevant to the question you posited, you then declare the non-relevance of the tangent to be proof of your hypothesis..

I thought more that I had posited a paradox, that I had a very weak solutoin to the hypothesis, but challenged people to see if they could come up with a better one. I did not think they had.

Originally posted by taxwonk I was attempting to offer Chinaskian constructive criticism in suggesting that you step back, reformulate your hypothesis, and stick to that point. Doing so would allow you to respond to your issue, instead of arguing about things that are not apposite to your main hypothesis.

It is clear that my constructive criticism was not taken in the spirit in which it was intended. My bad. Please accept my apology.

That is very gracious of you. I apologize for my irrational backlash to your statements.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But not in a good way.

The same could be said of you.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
on't presume that you know shit about me, Spankster. I'm not going to pull my dick out* and measure it for you either.





*bigger than taxwonk's, I've heard!

And not in a good way.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky

I can always ask why because your responses go in circles. Its like I ask, how do you know tom is big? Tom is big because he wears shirts. Why do you think wearing shirts makes him big? I ask the why question because you stated something else that does not support why Tom is big. So I have to ask the question - why is Tom wearing a shirt make him big?

If I ask you if something is legal. The answer is it is illegal because there is a law against it. That answers the question. If you say it is illegal because it is bad, that does not answer the question. Bad may have been the reason that the law was passed, but the law itself makes it illegal.

I have asserted over and over that the terms moral, immoral, right or wrong imply a code, or a measuring device, and that the person you are talking to understands that measuring device.

Like I have said from the very beginning, unless we assume there is a common morality code between you and the person you are communicating with, terms like moral, immoral, right and wrong really have no meaning. They are terms that refer to nothing.

I'd be careful if I were you. You are beginning to sound as moronic and arrogant as that moron Tax Wonk.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The same could be said of you.

She is the Pretty Lady. I would venture that whether my breasts are smaller or larger than yours, it is in a good way. So, in terms of aesthetic value, it's: ncs>fringe>wanker

I'm not a total loser!

Someone just told me a story of a guy who offed himself in connection with restating plans for ERISA in the 70s (or 80s; who knows how long THAT took). It did not have a perkifying effect.