How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

Hammster said:

It’s your fault for claiming that I used the word incorrectly. But now this discussion has become quite silly.

Click to expand...

It's way worse than silly for you to maintain you
are right when you are wrong.
It kills credibility, among other thungs
Show me a dictionary ( cut n paste
will do) that defines " admit" as you claim.

Do it and I will exile myself for a week.
If you can't, then admit you were wrong.

Hammster said:

A fixed point isn’t necessary in order to say something is wrong. That’s correct. And if you go back to my first posts, you’ll see that I’ve not said anything different. A fixed point of reference I’d necessary, however, to say why something is wrong. To be wrong or right, you need something to compare it to. Otherwise, it’s just a feeling.

Click to expand...

And what happens when your "fixed" point of reference is later proven wrong? Do you stick with it because you've decided a fixed point of reference is more important than the truth? Or do you change in light of new information.

Hammster said:

“Fixed point of reference”

Click to expand...

That is not a definition, that's an example of
using it in a sentenc.

How about " predetermined, not subject to or able to be changed".

2PhiloVoid said:

Why would I do that? ................I think you've mistaken me for a more fundamentalist version of my fellow Christians.

Click to expand...

No; I've mistaken you for the guy who claimed there was a universal moral standard accepted by everyone and I assumed you would be willing to back up that claim.

Ken-1122 said:

And what happens when your "fixed" point of reference is later proven wrong? Do you stick with it because you've decided a fixed point of reference is more important than the truth? Or do you change in light of new information.

Click to expand...

How about fixed interpretations?

Estrid said:

How about fixed interpretations?

Click to expand...

What's the use of having it fixed, if it is written in such a vague way that it can be interoperated differently by different people who have different agendas?

Ken-1122 said:

What's the use of having it fixed, if it is written in such a vague way that it can be interoperated differently by different people who have different agendas?

Click to expand...

I liked what a Jesuit priest said to
me in Hong Kong when I asked.

He said God gave us the
commandments, and a brain.
He expects us to use our brains
responsibly.

I asked because a Christian who was
most unsuccessful in trying to
evangelize me said in response
to a q about " thou shalt not
steal", that she would not steal
so much as a penny to save
her mother's life.

Ken-1122 said:

No; I've mistaken you for the guy who claimed there was a universal moral standard accepted by everyone and I assumed you would be willing to back up that claim.

Click to expand...

As I said. You've mistaken me for someone else. Perhaps you weren't listening or paying attention? I haven't said anything about a universal moral standard.....yet. I have said that I think there is an Unwritten Universal Moral Principle. That is all. A moral principle alone is obviously not a moral rule, let alone a universally substantiated system of absolute implication. It is a simple principle. A "standard," however, requires a moral authority and a humanly recognizable cognition about that authority. It's this second part that I'm unable to directly produce and to which I defer to various ethicists as to its phenonemonal nature and finally, to the likes of Jesus.

But with my UUMP in tow, you see where your moral quandary is, though, don't you? You should.

We're not just talking about aesthetics here: that is, were not "simply" talking about whether a person likes or dislikes some very, very unpleasant experience in the same way that we'd describe our like or dislike of eating chocolate ice cream.

No, we're talking about semantics and actual demonstrable applications about the principle I've just briefly described above, applications that really shouldn't require us to watch a movie like Clockwork Orange or have to appeal to other such additional more artificial "lessons" in order to recognize the principle. Life experience and history should be enough, if we're still sane.

Hammster said:

Do you know why we don’t burn witches or outlaw interracial marriage? Because we have a fixed point of reference…the Bible.

Click to expand...

And yet the interpretation changes, which is why you used to do both.

Hammster said:

Hebrews 8:13.

Click to expand...

If that was the case, there wouldn't have been witch burning or bans against interracial marriage in the first place.

Hammster said:

“Thanks for at least being the first to admit (to acknowledge; confess: ) that you have no basis for right and wrong. I’d say it was good, but it’s meaningless in your worldview.”

See you in a week.

Click to expand...

Seriously? After you claimed you /
it meant "acknowledge"?

Never mind, I will leave it to judge Judy
to get on your case if you try something
like that on her.

NxNW said:

If that was the case, there wouldn't have been witch burning or bans against interracial marriage in the first place.

Click to expand...

See, it's all about "fixed".
You've heard of variable fixed
rate mortgages, right??

Hammster said:

Yes, the interpretation might change. Are you familiar with the illustration of six blind men trying to describe an elephant?

Click to expand...

The opposite of 'fixed".
It's worse than just that because
people use the bible to justify all
manner of atrocities.

" Divine right of kings" is a good one
that went on for centuries.

Hammster said:

Right. The definition I gave a few days ago is right in the definition I copy/pasted, as you requested.

Bye.

Click to expand...

You claimed it means " acknowledge".
It doesnt.