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 want to know if you told me the wrong amount of apples. Whether you lied or made an honest mistake is irrelevant. Honesty is irrelevant.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.
You set the scenario up as a moral issue by making it about whether you were being ripped off, whether I undersold you apples.I want to know if you told me the wrong amount of apples. Whether you lied or made an honest mistake is irrelevant. Honesty is irrelevant.
You claimed that I implied you should be honest merely by debating you. That is false. Lie all you want.So your trying to make it just about descriptive statements where my original example was about epistemic values and how this relates to moral values which require a prescription of values.
No see I can also claim that you are not listening to me. I said that "you" also will imply honesty because you want to know if I lied or not ethically. I said you cannot tell if I have lied in an ethical sense without implicitly prescribing moral values like "honesty". Without "honesty" prescribed there is no such thing as lying in an ethical sense. So I have done nothing wrong if its just about a description of the world.You claimed that I implied you should be honest merely by debating you. That is false. Lie all you want.
No I don't. Pay attention.you want to know if I lied or not ethically
I understand your analogy. But I am talking about an ethical situation. Do you think there is ever a situation where we need to know if someone lied or misrepresented things ethically. Do you think there are epistemic values and facts that we need to apply in philosophical debates.No I don't. Pay attention.
Already answered.I understand your analogy. But I am talking about an ethical situation. Do you think there is ever a situation where we need to know if someone lied or misrepresented things ethically. Do you think there are epistemic values and facts that we need to apply in philosophical debates.
And I disagree. I am disputing your claims. We know that there are epistemic values in our philosophical diebates such as we should be good investigators of knowlkedge and beliefs justification by using good evdience rather than poorly investigateded evdience. You implicitly prescibe these when you challenge peoples evidence.Already answered.
Your argument relies on claiming I did something I didn't do. It's a garbage argument. It's been established that your claims are fantasy, I won't bother entertaining them further.And I disagree. I am disputing your claims. We know that there are epistemic values in our philosophical diebates such as we should be good investigators of knowlkedge and beliefs justification by using good evdience rather than poorly investigateded evdience. You implicitly prescibe these when you challenge peoples evidence.
And this is actual nonsense.It follows that we can determine a truth from a lie in a normative sense rather than a descriptive sense.
Fair enough.Your argument relies on claiming I did something I didn't do. It's a garbage argument. It's been established that your claims are fantasy, I won't bother entertaining them further.
So if we are to believe this claim then we can never really determine a truth from a lie in a normative sense. Isn't lying a social and moral norm issue.And this is actual nonsense.
I did not say what you claim. I said that we both will imply the value of "honesty" to a particular type of debate (a philosophical one seeking the truth of a matter). So you have misrepresented what I said. This requires some ethical value for you to determine if this is the case.You claimed that I implied you should be honest merely by debating you. That is false. Lie all you want.
No one "determines" things in a "normative sense". That's the nonsense.So if we are to believe this claim then we can never really determine a truth from a lie in a normative sense.
You claimed that I implied you should be honest merely by debating you. That is false. Lie all you want.
I did not say what you claim.
No, I'm not. I described a situation where the tree had 50 apples, you believed it had 100 apples, and you told me it had 100 apples. You did not lie in that situation, yet I corrected you for making a false statement by counting the apples. It's pretty straight forward.Yet you are accusing me of doing something ethically wrong ie "lying" to decieve you in a business deal. Its pretty straight forward.
Then I have to ask again, how do "you" tell if I am lying to expose that its not the truth.I'm debating you. You are making a philosophical argument seeking the truth of a matter. Nothing is misrepresented.
I though you said there was no such thing as a lie in a normative sense.Also, you took that last statement the wrong way. That wasn't an accusation. I meant it exactly the way I said it. Lie all you want, I don't care. I'm not telling you that you should be honest, I'm telling you to lie if you feel like it. I don't care.
So what if I did lie, say I misrepresented your arguement intentionaly. How would you know.No, I'm not. I described a situation where the tree had 50 apples, you believed it had 100 apples, and you told me it had 100 apples. You did not lie in that situation, yet I corrected you for making a false statement by counting the apples. It's pretty straight forward.
I wouldn't "know" you did it intentionally. But I can quote you, and then I can quote me to show that what you said ain't what I said. Whether you did it on purpose (a lie) or by accident (a mistake) is irrelevant. How many times do I have to say this? Will you read this post?So what if I did lie, say I misrepresented your arguement intentionaly. How would you know.
I am reading your posts. I am just finding it hard to understand what you mean thats all.I wouldn't "know" you did it intentionally. But I can quote you, and then I can quote me to show that what you said ain't what I said. Whether you did it on purpose (a lie) or by accident (a mistake) is irrelevant. How many times do I have to say this? Will you read this post?
Same sex acts are forbidden in God's word. End of story. It is no different from adultery, fornication, witchcraft or any other sinful lifestyle. Man may designate same sex relationships as marriage, but it is not what God calls marriage.That's pretty close.
But the reason they were considered sinning is that they could not get married.
Obviously, at that time, marriage was not an option, so society did not allow them to be committed to one partner. So yes, they were sinners. They really had no choice at the time except to sleep around.
Same sex acts are forbidden in God's word. End of story.
If you read anything I wrote you'd know the answer to this question and wouldn't be bothering with asking.I am reading your posts. I am just finding it hard to understand what you mean thats all.
So do you think people have an obligation to be honest at all when debating with each other.
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?