Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I already did bit I will go back again and reread it.I already addressed this. I won't keep repeating myself to someone who refuses to pay attention. Go back and reread my apple tree analogy.
No I answered it here #2499We were in the middle of discussing this and you ignored my last reply to you on the topic.
So I reread the apple tree example again just to make sure I didn't miss something and still I disagree that your analogy accounts for not needing a moral evaluation to judge if I have lied or not. Let me ask you can "reality" be evaluated morally. Say we took all the normative context out of reality what are we left with.I already addressed this. I won't keep repeating myself to someone who refuses to pay attention. Go back and reread my apple tree analogy.
That post has nothing to do with our conversation about my proof that all ought statements are irrational. You really don't read my posts do you?No I answered it here #2499
It can't be spelled out simpler.So I reread the apple tree example again just to make sure I didn't miss something and still I disagree that your analogy accounts for not needing a moral evaluation to judge if I have lied or not.
The word rapture is not used in the Bible either. However, it conveys the meaning of the Bible's concept. The Bible forbids "sexual intercourse between members of the same sex." That is a mouthful to say the least. Homosexuality condenses the meaning into one word.The word was created about 130 years ago. So you might be
using the wrong word because the Bible was written well before that.
Likely you are thinking a of a different word.
That is a great explanation. So then it is the wrong word in English.The word rapture is not used in the Bible either. However, it conveys the meaning of the Bible's concept. The Bible forbids "sexual intercourse between members of the same sex." That is a mouthful to say the least. Homosexuality condenses the meaning into one word.
Same sex attraction is not necessarily a sin. Those who engage in same sex acts are sinning, just as adulterers, thieves, murderers or any other offence against God's character and nature.That is a great explanation. So then it is the wrong word in English.
That's just like the concept of "GhettoGangbangers" and but saying "Being Black" is a sin.
So let me ask you can "reality" on its own be morally evaluative.That post has nothing to do with our conversation about my proof that all ought statements are irrational. You really don't read my posts do you?
It can't be spelled out simpler.
What does your question mean?So let me ask you can "reality" on its own be morally evaluative.
I've been pretty patient with you. I think I deserve more courtesy than this.You made my mistake of jumping into someone elses discussion and not knowing what it was about. Here is the post #2416 relating what we were talking about.
That's pretty close.Same sex attraction is not necessarily a sin. Those who engage in same sex acts are sinning, just as adulterers, thieves, murderers or any other offence against God's character and nature.
I've been pretty patient with you. I think I deserve more courtesy than this.
Sorry I am not being rude. I just thought it would be easier for you to read the other posts to get the context. I am not sure myself as Moral Oreal used the term "reality" to explain how he can know whether someone has lied or misrepresented things.I've been pretty patient with you. I think I deserve more courtesy than this.
What does "morally evaluative" even mean? How can reality be/do/something that?
Don't feel bad, @Tinker GreySo let me ask you can "reality" on its own be morally evaluative.
Your the one that used "reality" to measure moral situations ieDon't feel bad, @Tinker Grey
I don't know what that question means either.
Man, even when you look directly at what I say and quote me you still don't read it.Your the one that used "reality" to measure moral situations ie
I've already answered your question; I compare your statements to reality. Maybe you believe your statements to be true, maybe you don't. If you believe your own statements to be true then you're being honest, if you don't believe your own statements to be true, then you are being dishonest. Either way, I don't need to know what you believe to be true to show that what you say is false.
I am just trying to qualify what you meant by "reality". But "reality" on its own does not have any moral evaluative ability. Its just "reality" Its just about how things are in the world. If you want to discover if I am lying then "you" have to use some ethical evaluation and not just "reality" whatever that means.
Thats why I asked how does "reality" help "you" not me in determining if I have lied. I don't understand what you mean.Man, even when you look directly at what I say and quote me you still don't read it.
Because there's no such thing as an honest mistake.That moral evaluation require "you" to prescribe the value of "honesty" to see if I have said something false or not.
What about in a situation where you want to find out whether I have ripped you off (intentional deception) in our apple tree transaction. Don't you need some value judgement.Because there's no such thing as an honest mistake.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?