The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

Not disingenuous if your motives are disingenuous.

I knew you wouldn't. LOL. I knew you wouldn't go back to the threads and answer them. Slip back into your hole now, J.

You may answer it, after you said that you would?

Yes I want to answer it. Do you have one?

 

[anonymous person]

I´m sure you see it quite fine. There is no need to talk in philosophical categories when the position is clearly there to read. At best, it´s just a redundant deviation. At worst...well...I guess we both know.

Btw. have you already forgotten your pompous resolutions you made yesterday?

But this is a philosophy forum. Right?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes I want to answer it. Do you have one?

I already linked you to them in our PM.

 

[anonymous person]

There is no need to talk in philosophical categories while talking in a philosophy forum.

Is that it?

 

[quatona]

Then why are you having a conversation with me?

I wouldn´t call that a conversation, exactly. You are talking to yourself, more than anything.

 

[anonymous person]

I already linked you to them in our PM.

Which one, which PM?

 

[anonymous person]

I wouldn´t call that a conversation, exactly. You are talking to yourself, more than anything.

Who was this written to then?

To all of the posts you wrote that had my quotes in them, who were you talking to? Yourself? Others here?

If others, why did you quote me?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which one, which PM?

The one titled "Replies."

 

[quatona]

Turning attention from our discussion to my motives for being here is itself disingenuous. It is to introduce a red herring into the discussion.

Except that´s exactly what you did when you were stuck yesterday. You revealed that it´s all about apologetics, and that you don´t care for the intellectual part. It´s important to keep that in mind. In fact, it won´t take long until you will display that attitude again.

 

[quatona]

Who was this written to then?

To all of the posts you wrote that had my quotes in them, who were you talking to? Yourself? Others here?

If others, why did you quote me?

You are free to call it a "conversation". Where I come from we call it "communication breakdown".

Now, do you have anything of relevance to say in response to my on-topic position and arguments?

 

[anonymous person]

The one titled "Replies."

Ok gotcha. I will check it out and post the questions here to see if you have anymore you may want to ask.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Except that´s exactly what you did when you were stuck yesterday. You revealed that it´s all about apologetics, and that you don´t care for the intellectual part. It´s important to keep that in mind. In fact, it won´t take long until you will display that attitude again.

Amazing, isn't it? He tells us that he doesn't "care for our intellectualism," and then whines when we point out that this has ceased to be an intellectual discussion. You would think that he'd be rejoicing at that.

 

[anonymous person]

Except that´s exactly what you did when you were stuck yesterday. You revealed that it´s all about apologetics, and that you don´t care for the intellectual part. It´s important to keep that in mind. In fact, it won´t take long until you will display that attitude again.

This really has nothing to do with apologetics at the present.

Rather, I am attempting to understand what your views are and whether or not I have made accurate deductions from the statement you made earlier about the rape of children being wrong even if an objective perspective says otherwise.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok fair enough. You do not respect intellectual dishonesty.

Is there something objectively wrong with being intellectually dishonest? Is that bad even if the dishonest person thinks it is good?

Intellectual dishonesty tells me this about a person:

They may have some internal struggle going on (likely cognitive dissonance), that causes them to twist others words, ignore reality and be outright, dishonest in their approach with other people, because they are trying to protect something, they know deep down, is vulnerable to scrutiny.

IMO, being intellectually dishonest is the wrong way to approach others, but I have no control how others act. Therefore, I make it a habit of observing and distancing myself from those types of people.

 

[anonymous person]

You are free to call it a "conversation". Where I come from we call it "communication breakdown".

Now, do you have anything of relevance to say in response to my on-topic position and arguments?

Sure.

Were my deductions in post 908 accurate or not?

 

[anonymous person]

Intellectual dishonesty tells me this about a person:

They may have some internal struggle going on (likely cognitive dissonance), that causes them to twist others words, ignore reality and be outright, dishonest in their approach with other people, because they are trying to protect something, they know deep down, is vulnerable to scrutiny.

IMO, being intellectually dishonest is the wrong way to approach others, but I have no control how others act. Therefore, I make it a habit of observing and distancing myself from those types of people.

I value all that you wrote. But you did not answer the question.

Is being intellectually dishonest objectively wrong?

Do I need to explain to you what that means?

 

[anonymous person]

Amazing, isn't it? He tells us that he doesn't "care for our intellectualism," and then whines when we point out that this has ceased to be an intellectual discussion. You would think that he'd be rejoicing at that.

Rather, I am attempting to meet you on your own ground and remove any excuse you may have for not answering that one question I asked you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure.

Were my deductions in post 908 accurate or not?

Isn't deduction an intellectual activity?

 

[quatona]

Sure.
Were my deductions in post 908 accurate or not?

I didn´t ask "Do you have a question about your deductions?"
I asked "Do you have anything of relevance to say in response to my on-topic position and arguments?"
I take that as a "no", then.

 

[anonymous person]

Isn't deduction an intellectual activity?

Sure.