Well, there’s me, and I already gave you one warning in this thread. Do you want to push your luck? In any event, you do not get to ask for a replacement or decide who moderates your posts and how. Sorry. If you have any further questions, comments, complaints, or anything else related to the moderating around here, start a thread in the About This Message Board forum or take the discussion to private messages. Don’t post them it in this thread, please.
Not true. George Orwell and other atheists in fox holes demonstrate(d) an astounding amount of empathy, knowing that they’ll face nothing other than oblivion or damnation after death, but recognising that the improved quality of life for those remaining on earth.
That’s not limited to soldiers though: Bayard Rustin was tireless and chivalrous and it would be a mischaracterisation of his life’s work to say it was solely for personal gain.
There are other instances where religious people have risked their own immortal souls to secure those for others. For example, infanticide in South America. I think it is entirely justifiable within a Utilitarian framework. Damning oneself in order to guarantee thousands of souls entering heaven is a hugely moral sacrifice, perhaps greater even than that of Jesus (because Jesus is omniscient and those that kill children are not). In that view, the most moral action would be to obliterate all life on earth, granting them into the hands of God while accepting eternal torture personally.
You have conflated two separate issues.
I have read this thread because, as a Moderator, I have been asked to ensure that rules are not broken. Having had to read the thread, I have also contributed a few comments of my own. (You can easily distinguish the difference between my official remarks and my personal remarks because the former are tagged as “Moderator . . . /Moderating”).
However, as a poster, I do not choose to engage you. Your poor logic and quote mining have already been pointed out by other posters, so it would be redundant of me to repeat them. On the other hand, you have demonstrated an inability or an unwillingness to actually consider those points raised against you and I know from long message board experience that a discussion with a poster who argues in the manner you choose will never come to a resolution. Therefore, I choose not to prolong the drama. (Others may choose to continue the discussion if they wish. I do note that this thread tends to fade away, only to be reawakened by you after days of dormancy. You seem to believe that you are making some point by bumping the thread, periodically, but the fact that you are the one who has to bump it supports my position from post #94.
As to my Moderating, nothing I have posted would incite a normal poster to break the rules and, as Marley has noted, neither of us are going anywhere.
Now, if anyone wishes to engage you, we will allow this thread to continue, but if you are simply going to bump the thread because no one else is interested or if you attempt to pick fights with the Mods, we will probably close it. I tried, in Post #94, to offer you a polite explanation regarding the lack of response you received to this thread. You chose to get your back up. I am not going to keep playing your game.
I’m glad to see you’re still here.
You’ll need to be clear about what “this context” refers to exactly. Obviously, it refers to the conversation in the thread, but what would count as a relevantly similar context?
I ask because, stated as baldly as you have above, your simple premise appears trivially false. For example,
“The reason the ball fell was because I dropped it,”
does not mean the same thing as
“The purpose the ball fell was because I dropped it,”
Nor even the grammatically cleaned-up
“The purpose for which the ball fell was so that I might drop it.”
If everyone is free to pick the purposes they wish… (And I believe that, even though I believe there is a purpose the universe was created for… the standard by which we will all ultimately be judged… but you are free not to follow it…) then, they can choose things like “a well functioning society” as their purpose and work towards a goal that continues after their death. They personally have to pick an “improved quality of life for those remaining” as their goal. If you don’t pick that, (and you’re free not to,) then things that promote that may not be on your list of moral things to do.
Many people support a well functioning society theoretically. Many people will say, “well, yeah. Everyone’s better off if we all follow the rules.” But it’s interesting to note how quickly most people stop thinking about how others will be better off if they aren’t getting what they want. People (in general) support society when it is making their life better. When it isn’t doing what they feel is enough for them, they tend to revert to their actual goal. The one that lies behind “society is best for everyone…” And that would be, “I want what is best for me.” I said tend to.
But, the main point is that when people revert to “me first” no one has any reason to say that’s the wrong objective… Except if you also say, there is a purpose to the universe, the standard by which we all will be judged. If it comes to pass that you are asked, “did you fulfill the object that you were created for,” and you say, “no, I picked these others, and based my ‘moral principles’ on what fulfilled them,” the answer should be “well, this was the standard you are being judged on, the standard you were always going to be judged on, so those were wrong.”
You have correctly determined that words can have different contexts and different meanings in those contexts.
For instance, the context of this question would be more along the lines of…
“Give me a reason to drop the ball.” … “give me a reason to follow a moral instruction you provide.”
Merriam-Webster definition of REASON (n)
I am using b) a rational ground or motive
You used d) the thing that makes some fact intelligible: cause
You determined that cause does not mean purpose. But motive does mean purpose.
“What motive did you have for dropping the ball? What purpose did you have for dropping the ball? What reason did you have for dropping the ball?”
yes, if you change the definition from the one I was actually using, it would seem trivially false. Keep the same definition and try again.
I’ve been asked not to comment on this.
I finally realize that I don’t need to defend myself from these charges. I got pulled into the “did to,” “did not,” “did to,” “did not,” distraction for a while. I’m never going to convince him. But…
It doesn’t matter if people think I have “poor logic,” and that the arguments used against my position had “superior logic.” (a term I am introducing now to describe the arguments used against my position. Mine is “poor,” theirs is “superior.” This still doesn’t apply to tomndebb’s charges since he is not engaging in the discussion and supplies no arguments apparently.),
Repeating a charge of “poor logic” that you supply no arguments for, and even noting that others with “superior logic” may have used the same charge can not change the outcome of that debate. My “poor logic” predicted that they would not be able to provide a reason for a moral instruction without supplying a purpose for it. And, in every attempt, their “superior logic” failed to support their position, and established mine.
That part of the discussion is over, (despite Frylock’s attempt to change the definition… he may still wish to try to re-open the discussion. But it will take more arguments to do so.) The people with “superior logic” whose charges you repeat wandered off after being unable to support their position and establishing mine with every attempt. Nothing you can repeat from that and no baseless charge you fling can change that. The discussion is moving on to a new level where the starting basis is my previous position.
People want to think my logic is “poor?” Doesn’t matter. Their “superior” logic established my position, (in the manner that my “poor” logic predicted.) What does it say about the logic of someone who can’t tell that the discussion, (that he isn’t joining,) has established a position he still can’t accept? Or of someone who thinks that repeating charges from that discussion can change the outcome? And those with “superior” logic? Well, the logical thing would be to recognize that their logic established my position, and therefore, it should be their position too. That remains to be seen. We will see if they come back, (in other threads, I don’t expect them back here,) supporting the position their logic confirmed.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I do note that this thread tends to fade away, only to be reawakened by you after days of dormancy. You seem to believe that you are making some point by bumping the thread, periodically, but the fact that you are the one who has to bump it supports my position
[/QUOTE]
I typically have an hour or two on a couple days a week for these discussions. Sometimes more, sometimes less. I choose to spend most of my time in other pursuits, not neglecting my family and other responsibilities. (not that anyone else is neglecting those things, but I feel I would be by spending too much time here.) So, typically, a few days may go by before I have a chance to respond to someone. And only once did I respond to myself because the previous discussion established my position. So, I’m attempting to move the discussion along to the next point.
Then stop wasting your time hijacking this thread.
My opinion of your debating skills is not pertinent to this thread.
If you continue to keep harking back to the subject of your logic or your argumentation, you may wind up with a Warning for ignoring Moderator instructions.
If you continue to keep harking back to the subject of your logic or your argumentation while no one else even bothers to respond, I will close this thread.
[ /Moderating ]