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.
As far as I can tell, neither of his labels fit me. (His definition of "objective" doesn´t seem to be the same that moral realism uses. E.g. his definition includes a dog´s views whereas - I think - moral realism´s doesn´t).He hasn't said anything to establish that he is an ethical naturalist. What facts of nature is he appealing to? He could easily be an ethical non-naturalist.
I'm not even quite sure that he's a moral realist, but I think he should classify himself.
Which post would that be?Reference my post where I made certain deductions from your statement about rape. If any of those deductions were wrong, you have the opportunity now to point them out.
The "woe is me" sermonising about your wrongs and how God is correcting them through us. The preaching, platitudinous promises of prayer, and insincere contrition for your disingenuous tactics all point to desperation.
As far as I can tell, neither of his labels fit me. (His definition of "objective" doesn´t seem to be the same that moral realism uses. E.g. his definition includes a dog´s views whereas - I think - moral realism´s doesn´t).
But what´s the point in talking labels when my position is there to read quite clearly, anyway? It´s just his way of avoiding to address my actual position.
There´s just no point in having a conversation with an dishonest individual such as you, from a purely human perspective.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?
No, as I said I don´t care for your labels. Address my positions as described. Don´t expect me to fall for your dishonest tactics.Talk to me.
You are a cognitivist right?
Do you need me to explain what that means?
There´s just no point in having a conversation with an dishonest individual such as you, from a purely human perspective.
No, as I said I don´t care for your labels. Address my positions as described. Don´t expect me to fall for your dishonest tactics.
That's what keeps you here, isn't it? The attention?Talk to me.
You tell us: if Yahweh commands you to be dishonest, it is still bad?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?
Actually, I am trying my best to address your arguments, I am not trying to fit them into philosophical labels.But you label me.
Yes, Jeremy, we are all simply instruments being used by someone else to make you better. It's all about you.God is using everyone he brings into my life to help me.
That's what keeps you here, isn't it? The attention?
That's why you're here and not on your blog, even though you paid for a domain name. You want an audience, and it doesn't matter to you whether they are booing or applauding, so long as they are paying you attention.
Yes, Jeremy, we are all simply instruments being used by someone else to make you better. It's all about you.
Actually, I am trying my best to address your arguments, I am not trying to fit them into philosophical labels.
Not disingenuous if your motives are disingenuous.Turning attention from our discussion to my motives for being here is itself disingenuous. It is to introduce a red herring into the discussion.
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.Now I went back through our conversations and found no question which you asked that I did not answer.
You may answer it, after you said that you would?If there is a specific one you had in mind, I would ask you present it so that I may answer it.
You tell us: if Yahweh commands you to be dishonest, it is still bad?
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.I never got the aversion to being labeled.
I am a man. That is a label.
I live in America. I am an American. That is a label.
I am an adherent of reformed epistemology. I am a reformed epistemologist. That is a label.
I am a Christian. That is a label.
I am a Divine Command Theorist. That is a label.
I just do not see why there is this revulsion and adamant desire to not be labeled.
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?