Thank you for sharing.

"Perhaps we can pursue this further at some point" is hardly an ironclad promise to pursue the topic, especially given that I have TWICE demonstrated my lack of interest in the topic.

If the Mods think I am lying or otherwise not following proper Forum protocol and/or decorum, then I would be grateful if they would let me know.

Complex Question Fallacy. DUCY?

Is it unrighteous to be a cruel troll? Why or why not?

This is very good.

I wholehearly disagree with your idea that Morals are derieved from "God" or rather "Gods words as known by humans". All Morals are artificial constructs and will always be constructed by the individual, mostly based on his environment (culture) and the therefore aquired knowledge (or rather assumed knowledge) with varying amounts of personal input.

But other than that, very good.



"Preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" - Sounds pretty racist to me.

This is twice now that you've dodged the question.

What on Earth are you talking about? I posted the following weeks ago, and you accepted that definition (a definition that is widely used):
Do you think unnecessary harm can't be detected by human beings?



You are also presenting a philosophical problem that you don't have a solution for either - that's why it's considered a problem:
My response is "So what?"

Google Complex Question Fallacy, and you will find out why I didn't answer your question. Hint: Your question is like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

It is certainly an allusion or suggestion that you will and that we the discussion has been given its own thread as an apparent response to your suggestion you would discuss it, and you still refuse is very indicative of how dishonest you KNOW you are being.

You CONTINUALLY repeat versions of that singular claim (the lie) in all sorts of threads, but RETREAT from defending or substantiating the claim in those threads suggesting it would be a 'derail' of those threads. Now you have a thread where you can substantiate a claim you keep presenting as if true or fact and it will not be a derail. This is the appropriate place to flesh it out and show it to be true to dispel the criticisms that are forwarded to you when you make that claim with nothing behind it.

And yet you refuse. In the perfect forum you throw up the 'i don't want to discuss a claim i make' while we know you will continue to repeat it.

That is dishonest laggy. Deeply dishonest. So do not cry and beg for mod intervention when I point that out in thread after and call you one of the proven more dishonest posters in this forum, because that is what you are.

And I don't even dislike you as a poster so that is not the point of this. But I do hate very deliberate and purposeful dishonesty. And thus why I feel compelled to engage it and you.

Since all humans are made in the image of God, most humans can detect unnecessary harm a goodly portion of the time.

There is nothing philosophically problematic by responding with "So what?". Maybe I'm being even more dense than usual, but what "philosophical problem" are you alluding to? Thanks.

This is a question laggy has clearly considered as he is constantly confronted with it. I think it is absolutely fair to say at this point he has been unable to come up with any rationalization or defense for it and thus he has rationalized that he will not even try as he has learned his attempt to justify it actually exposes it to be wrong and an indefensible position.

So his go to is to simply move on and just keep repeating as if nothing said to him prior, had any meaning.

So when you ask, seemingly incredulously, "What on Earth are you talking about? " it seems you are operating from the position that you are dealing with an honest actor, who will utilize past factual discussions to inform his stated current view.

That is not laggy. Not even a little bit. Nothing that has been pointed out to him prior that disproves his view, nothing he has agreed to prior that might counter his view, is of any relevance to him if he wants to dishonestly keep repeating his view. He will just ignore everything said prior and go back to repeating the original premise as if his position is the proven and accepted one.

I do not believe that I am being dishonest. If you believe that I am being dishonest, then why are you wasting your time engaging me? Engaging dishonest people is seldom a fruitful endeavor, in my experience.

Please cite a specific post of mine which is an example of "the lie" that you are talking about. The only topic that I am intentionally "dodging" with you is the one about Evangelicals voting for the Big Bad Orange Man, and presumably others of his ilk. (As an aside, as a Fundamentalist Baptist, I'm technically not even an Evangelical.)

Talk about dishonesty! Please quote me "begging" for mod intervention? I literally asked the mods if I was doing something wrong, I would be grateful if they would let me know. You are being very dishonest here. Which makes you quite the hypocrite in this case, does it not?

I do not dislike you as a poster either; in fact, I consider you one of the most thoughtful posters in P&S. I even said in the Moderation Thread over there that I thought that you would be a good moderator.

In what universe is my statement

an example of "begging for mod intervention?"

Thanks.

Completely disagree.

You wield dishonest like a propaganda tool and I think people must confront dishonesty with fact and truth each and every time a lie is repeated.

This is a lie. I have invited you to offer any example or just use 'generic despot' to discuss this and you refuse.

But the bigger question is WHY would you refuse to engage in this discussion when we have Trump as a very real world example TODAY of what religious people would define as a deeply morally bankrupt man and false profit?

Trump has Evangelical as well as WHite Supremist votes on lock down even with all his moral failings and bankrupt ambitions in plain view just because these two groups hope they get a couple of their priorities fed to them, if he achieves the absolute power he openly craves.

But as I said, happy to discuss this with you using 'generic despot'.

What a bedfellow though, right laggy. When we talk about which groups are the most corruptible. The most likely to compromise and sell out all their other held moral values and principles, that we end up debating which of White Supremist or Evangelicals are the worst?

You threw out that you thought Progressives are the most corruptible in that regard but never attempted to defend that. I would like to see you try to make that argument with any historical reference points.

False. You constantly cry out to the mods about being called a liar, despite this growing proven resume of you lying as you do here.

I started to respond to the above post, but realized that I would have to respond to your response to my response, etc, etc, etc...

So, I have nothing else to say on this particular subject.

Even more, I really never had anything important or interesting to say on this subject in the first place, and made it clear at least twice I wasn't interested in the topic. Unfortunately, I made the mistake (in retrospect) of trying to politely end the conversation by saying, "Perhaps we can discuss this in a separate thread at some point." (emphasis added)


See you in the funny papers!

I don't mind if you want to use "morality" to refer to God's commands. What is dishonest is to say you won't, but then continue to do so. If during a discussion you grant that some claim is false or argument is faulty, but then continue using that claim or argument, it causes me to think that you are not arguing in good faith.

So you don’t approve of Milo’s tactics? You have plenty of time to explain your position.

For the third (fourth?) time: I have yet to find a word other than morality to collectively identify a variety of things, like God's commands, sin, righteousness, obedience, etc.

I apologize for my inability to convey a simple idea, even after several tries.

I suspect that there are times in which you yourself have changed and/or modified your position on something based on new information or if something problematic occurs (such as in my case above).

I indicated several times why I started using morality again. (Or, at least I thought I did. My bad.)

There are a number of things about Milo that I don't like. I am unaware of any example of him being "cruel". (I'm not saying that there aren't any; I am unaware of any.)

Anyway, any example you can find in which Milo is being cruel, I will join you in calling him out.

Now, please answer my question: Is being cruel to someone a sinful thing to do? Why or why not? Thanks.

How about his harassment of Leslie Jones?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...targeted-abuse

Yes, it’s very mean and bad.

Then why say something as transparently wrong as "then a human's sense of right and wrong can't correspond to any actual universal, objective state of affairs"?

The one you brought up (the is-ought problem). "So what" is the response to any "is" statement that is presuming some "ought" follows, regardless of whether it is based in naturalism or theism.

Someone could argue that Jones is a public figure and so should tolerate a higher level of public 'interest', so a much easier example imo is the student Yiannopoulos mocked at one of his college events:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/vb4e...los-speaks-out

Sure. It’s sort of hard to believe lag’s speaking in good faith when he claims to know who Milo is and yet be totally unfamiliar with Milo’s entire ouvre of harassment and abuse. We could pick dozens of examples like this.

The bolded is where we differ. You think this is just about word usage. You don't view yourself as bound to your past statements and so feel free to easily say you'll do x going forward because you are reserving the right to change your mind whenever you want. I disagree: I view myself as bound to do what I say I'm going to do. I can't just change my mind about it because it is inconvenient.

For instance, imagine we had a conversation where you convinced me that "homophobic" did not include "believing that homosexuality is a sin," and so I said that I wouldn't call people homophobic simply because that was their belief. But then I kept on doing so anyway because it was inconvenient not to or so I could troll Christians. I would consider that dishonest. If I wasn't planning on changing my usage I shouldn't have said I was going to.

Obviously this is a minor issue, nothing really rests on whether or not you use "morality" to refer to your views on sin and righteousness. I mostly noted this as a calibration of how seriously to take your statements about what you'll say going forward.

Just a side note, I can't help but feel weirded out every time I see you post this strange choice of phrase that you are so attached to. Recent search history:









Not least of the weirdness is that you seem to think it is prescriptive rather than descriptive, despite the existence of modern healthcare that literally helps the weakest survive.

Also, who exactly are you calling "baby"? And do you ever make proclamations like these:
The curvature of spacetime, baby!
An object at rest remains at rest, baby!
Cosmic microwave background radiation, baby!
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.... baby!

This idea that ideas of right and wrong fail unless given by some invisible, supernatural god ... is the epitomy of sacrificing one's moral agency and rationality. When we appeal to superstition as the grounding of morality, or of anything else, we simply fail to use our mind, our humanity, our reason. In ceding it to one of the thousands of gods, we don't make it objective, we simply make it authoritarian. This is the secret motive of religion -- obedience to authoritarianism as a defense mechanism against existential anxiety.

We end up at, "If God orders me to kill every child and fetus on earth, it is morally good and imperative for me to do it. After all, he did it himself and he never changes. So, I, in my chosen morality, support this system because magic beliefs are better than scientific paradigms (which I characterize as "goo to zoo to you").

Let's take a look at the "goo to zoo to you" brilliancy. It obviously seeks to demean natural phenomenon. The goo is chemicals and chemistry, water, molecules, enzymes. As "goo" doubters, we don't believe in this stuff. It's laughable. The "zoo" is animals which obviously do not relate to the appearance of human beings on the planet (the "you" part of the inanity). Again, such a thing as "animals to other animals" is laughable. We reject the natural world, mock it.

To continue in the belief that there is no grounding for rights, morality, and meaning without it being gifted by one of the gods, never mind which one, is infantile. Again, as a defense against existential anxiety, it demands the certainty and universality and authoritarianism of some omniscient being to save me from any possible uncertainty. Uncertainty is the enemy of the true believer. Every cult offers to answer this need, which is a vice.