Peter Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Ba’alyhi wrote: There is no such thing as a Moral Fact. Morality is a human construct. Artificial;. The only constraint on Morality is that it must be survivable. end quote For the moral ‘CODE’ to survive, humans must survive. Now, the numerous Chinese or Indians might put that “if, then, therefor” formula to bed, but for the long term, the more rational the code, the more food for the breeding stock, the happier the survivors . . . so, the moral code that FREELY governs best has the most adherents . . . in the long term. I once suggested Symphony of Science but you said it was cheesy. But it is good to hear Carl Sagan, Jane Goodall, etc., again. Even if it is to electronic feelgood music. Saint Crispin, the Patron Saint of Shoemakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: There is no such thing as a Moral Fact. Only secularists deny the objective reality of moral law which governs the inexorable consequences of their own actions. That denial doesn't make moral law cease to exist. It's just an empty peurile gesture of putting a blanket over your head in the belief that no one can see you. It's fine with me if you choose to live that way because you get exactly what you deserve regardless of affirmation or denial. That's how objective reality works. Since I don't subscribe to your amoral secular religion, naturally my view will always be different from yours. You'll take with you to your grave all of the consequences you deserve from your own actions same as I will along with everyone else, so the moral playing field is perfectly level. However, you will eventually need to arrive at an adult awareness of the reality that there is no possible resolution of two irreconcileable views. There is only stating each view so as to clarify how it is different from the other. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 24 minutes ago, Peter said: so, the moral code that FREELY governs best has the most adherents . . . in the long term. The US Constitution is a moral code restricting the government that freely governs America. However in the long term it is no longer applicable because it was solely designed only to freely govern decent Americans. But since decent Americans are no longer the majority in America, only an unconstitutional government is able to govern indecent people who do not deserve a decent government. This is why time and again you see the Constitution being openly and willfully violated. And it is only because there are no longer enough decent Americans in America who are worthy of being freely governed by decent Constitutional government. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 59 minutes ago, moralist said: The US Constitution is a moral code restricting the government that freely governs America. However in the long term it is no longer applicable because it was solely designed only to freely govern decent Americans. But since decent Americans are no longer the majority in America, only an unconstitutional government is able to govern indecent people who do not deserve a decent government. This is why time and again you see the Constitution being openly and willfully violated. And it is only because there are no longer enough decent Americans in America who are worthy of being freely governed by decent Constitutional government. Greg The Constitution is Law, and it is the supreme Law of our land it is governs everyone who lives in the jurisdiction of the United States whether they are decent or not. The indecent have the same Constitutional rights as the decent. Everyone in the U.S. is entitled to due process of law whether he is decent or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 1 hour ago, moralist said: Only secularists deny the objective reality of moral law which governs the inexorable consequences of their own actions. That denial doesn't make moral law cease to exist. It's just an empty peurile gesture of putting a blanket over your head in the belief that no one can see you. It's fine with me if you choose to live that way because you get exactly what you deserve regardless of affirmation or denial. That's how objective reality works. Since I don't subscribe to your amoral secular religion, naturally my view will always be different from yours. You'll take with you to your grave all of the consequences you deserve from your own actions same as I will along with everyone else, so the moral playing field is perfectly level. However, you will eventually need to arrive at an adult awareness of the reality that there is no possible resolution of two irreconcileable views. There is only stating each view so as to clarify how it is different from the other. Greg Every action has consequences. This is a physical law. It does not matter whether it is an action of a sentient being or an insentient object. The question is what consequences have moral import and what consequences do not. If a meteor flies in from outer space and squashes someone that is of no moral import. It is happenstance. If a piece falls off from an airplane and squashes someone and that piece came loose because the person inspecting the plane did not do his job right, that is both a physical consequence of an object falling and the moral deficit of the inspector not doing his duties/job correctly because of carelessness or inattention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: There is no such thing as a Moral Fact. Is that a fact? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: The Constitution is Law... And today the Constitution is routinely violated by the government because the majority of people in America are amoral secularists who by their indecent behavior don't deserve a decent Constitutional government... and so they're governed by an indecent unconstitutional government which perfectly matches their rotten amoral secular values. I've quoted this many times because it continues to be relevant. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams I fully understand you feel John Adams religious ideals were a fat load of crap, because that's your amoral secular view. My view is that you're a fat load of crap... literally. And this clearly defines the difference between our two views. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said: Is that a fact? --Brant Bob has no moral facts because he's an amoral secularist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Is that a fact? --Brant That is a fact. Why? The physical laws of the universe to not imply a moral order. Moral principle are 1) human made and 2) do not follow logically from physical facts or experimentally corroborate physical theories. Off course I am making an assumption that is NOT a fact to wit: The Cosmos is entirely physical from top to bottom..... And that includes us. There is nothing non-physical about humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 7 hours ago, moralist said: Bob has no moral facts because he's an amoral secularist. No. I am a moral secularist. I buy Jewish Ethics in the entirety. Jewish Ethics was invented by Jews some of who attribute it to G-D, which being non-physical might not exist. At least there is no empirical evidences that the G-D of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exists. The Jewish people over history has accidentally produced the best man-made system of ethics and morals ever. Many religious Jews believe a non-physical, non-natural being taught their ancestors this system of ethics. The Hebrew word Torah (תוֹרָה) does NOT mean Law. It means (a) teaching. I believe this was a fortunate accident. Others believe it was the result of divine intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 On 9/28/2016 at 3:50 PM, Peter said: I am in no way joking when I say Hillary was “augmented” in that first debate, either by handlers and/or with a computerized system. I instantly picked up on her looking at her lower right, and then occasionally at her lower left. I didn’t count the times but it could be in the hundreds. There had to be an “intelligence” behind the constantly changing writing and the synchronization of that written text and the words spoken during the debate. This is not that same as glancing at your notes. Peter, It actually might have been Clinton glancing at a small teleprompter. As the person I got the following video from said, this is becoming a thing right now: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 9 hours ago, moralist said: Scratch this. 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 18 hours ago, turkeyfoot said: Oh wait, Production vs Crime. Geoff, That's exactly right! See? You're coming along just fine. Besides, I always did have faith in you. Pretty soon you will be on the Trump Train. Michael Now wait, ah say wait a gosh dern blistering New Yawk minute there, varmint. That was a slow pitch. Once rid of "Crime" (Clinton) youre left with Production vs Government. Referring to last nights SNL's rendition of T vs C. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-debate-cold-open/3108903 "What youve got is trumped up trickle down economics." Nuff said? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Here is something really odd in the mainstream media. Bob Woodward, complaining about Clinton's gloating on winning the election debate, said there was "universal agreement" that she won the debate and her problem now is humility. I feel like I am living in the Twilight Zone. Universal agreement? On what planet? How about all those millions of folks who voted in the online polls immediately after the debate? I don't think they agree at all. Don't forget, Trump won 18 out of 19 of them in the list of the major ones. The media is ignoring Trump supporters once again. I don't think the elites get it that the people who resonate with Trump--like those millions who voted in the online polls and the huge numbers showing up to his rallies--find this attitude and spin infuriating. There are two types of emotion, emotions that make you act (like anger, excitement, etc.) and emotions that shut you down (sadness, contentment, etc.). Infuriated people turn out in mass on voting time, especially if they are excited by the possibility of a change that they want. Snarky self-congratulatory finger-wagging people do not inspire action in others. I say let the elites be as smug as they want and inspire as much complacency as they can muster. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 A couple of really interesting tweets: The first is from Jesse Rodriguez, the senior producer of "Morning Joe," dated last Tuesday. Julian Assange set to make an announcement from his balcony in London next Tuesday, according to @WikiLeaks— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) September 27, 2016 The second is from Roger Stone dated yesterday (late last night). Wednesday@HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks.— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 2, 2016 It looks like it is going to be an exciting week. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: It looks like it is going to be an exciting week. Dayamm! This just in from The Hill: WikiLeaks cancels Tuesday announcement amid security concerns I guess Assange doesn't want to be assassinated by a sniper. Anyway, re the leaks, let's see if he releases them without fanfare. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 I have never seen Chris Wallace act like such a hack before. Chris Christie ate his lunch and took the change. Good. At least we know what to expect in the last debate that Wallace will moderate. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 OMG! Alex Jones is paying prizes for people who get the "Bill Clinton rapist" tee-shirt seen on the air. One thousand dollars for a 5 second plus visual and five thousand dollars if you can get audio. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 On 01/10/2016 at 3:14 PM, BaalChatzaf said: There is no such thing as a Moral Fact. Morality is a human construct. Artificial;. The only constraint on Morality is that it must be survivable. There is nothing in physical laws that give rise to Morality. The is no purpose in the Cosmos, qua Cosmos. The only purposes in the universe are constructs of sentient beings. Moral fact, if it exists, depends on a grand purpose. If people could agree on what this purpose is, they would have a chance of agreeing on a system of ethics. This great purpose might be: Greatest happiness for greatest number of people: John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism. Serving God or Allah or Zeus: Religion. Rational selfishness: Ayn Rand's philosophy. Self-actualization (whatever that means): New Age or something. Etc Etc. : Whatever other great grand purpose that everything else is a means toward. Like the checkmate of chess. However complex and subtle your tactics and strategy and technique may be, all of it is governed by this one goal. The key to ethics is: What is the great grand ultimate purpose? Figure that out and you have it figured out. Possible answers from science: nothing Possible answers from philosophy: controversial Possible answers from religion: unthinking blind acceptance of doctrine Is the grand guiding principle of ethics something to discover? Or something to choose? If it is something to choose, can all mankind choose the same guiding principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This just in from The Hill: WikiLeaks cancels Tuesday announcement amid security concerns I guess Assange doesn't want to be assassinated by a sniper. Anyway, re the leaks, let's see if he releases them without fanfare. Looks like Assange will announce something on Tuesday. I predict all hell will break loose. According to @wikileaks, Julian Assange will appear via video link at Berlin press conference on Tuesday AM— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) October 2, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 And then there's this. The link goes to here. But this, to me, is nothing more than the old Hollywood build-up. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Chris Christie ate his lunch and took the change. I beg to differ. Christie left out the best rebuttal: if Trump had a $900M+ loss in one year, he presumably had $900M+ income in prior years. You can’t say the few ($10+?) million he inherited spun off such a tax loss. If you earn (in your business) $1M in year 1, pay tax on it, then lose $1M in year 2 guess what you get to do? File for a refund of what you paid in year 1. It’s called a carryback. There’s nothing crazy about it. Christie says this is part of our crazy tax code, accepting by implication that there's something wrong here, while this is one of the areas where the tax code is not crazy. BTW, you also get to carry it forward: it’s actually back 3 forward 15, hence the 18 year figure referenced in the clip. Concerning the Miss Universe Twitter thing, Trump’s behavior calls to mind one of the most unsavory figures in O-Land: Lindsay Perigo. Except Trump doesn’t delete his worst rants, and he doesn’t drink (meaning: he doesn’t have the same excuse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 1 hour ago, 9thdoctor said: I beg to differ. Christie left out the best rebuttal... Dennis, I'm not sure that what you wrote following the quote above will have any resonance with the public at large. People get bored when too much math is involved during a news show and they tune out. The Clinton soundbites that Chris Wallace was mouthing had resonance with the public (being focus-group tested and all ). What Chris Christie said had more resonance (being a wicked smart prosecutor and all ). That's why I said he destroyed Wallace's point. As to your Perigo comment, I find other differences than you do between Trump and Perigo (i.e., habits about drinking alcohol and ranting). For instance, I see that Trump builds skyscrapers and Perigo doesn't. Trump makes gobs of money on the open market and Perigo doesn't. Trump cultivates a large beautiful family and Perigo doesn't. Trump is successful as a TV celebrity and Perigo isn't. And so on... Oh... I forgot. Trump wins elections and Perigo doesn't... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Glenn Beck just keeps going lower and lower in my estimation. The following is a direct quote from Glenn Beck (after he compared Trump to the Nazis). Quote We just want to win! We have to stop winning and we have to start reconciling with each other... Are you fucking kidding me? We have to stop winning?!! When did we start? And you mean to tell me all those people who are out of work and/or losing their businesses are awful because they want to stop losing and maybe start winning? Gimme a break! I just don't know what to say... btw - Todd interviewed Michael Moore right before Beck. Moore said he's against Trump, but Trump is going to win the election because he's on the same resonance with... er... working people who are sick and tired of losing, essentially... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Glenn Beck just keeps going lower and lower in my estimation. The following is a direct quote from Glenn Beck (after he compared Trump to the Nazis). Are you fucking kidding me? We have to stop winning?!! When did we start? And you mean to tell me all those people who are out of work and/or losing their businesses are awful because they want to stop losing and maybe start winning? Gimme a break! I just don't know what to say... btw - Todd interviewed Michael Moore right before Beck. Moore said he's against Trump, but Trump is going to win the election because he's on the same resonance with... er... working people who are sick and tired of losing, essentially... Michael He is doing a Rodney King impression.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Dennis, I'm not sure that what you wrote following the quote above will have any resonance with the public at large. People get bored when too much math is involved during a news show and they tune out. The Clinton soundbites that Chris Wallace was mouthing had resonance with the public (being focus-group tested and all ). What Chris Christie said had more resonance (being a wicked smart prosecutor and all ). That's why I said he destroyed Wallace's point. As to your Perigo comment, I find other differences than you do between Trump and Perigo (i.e., habits about drinking alcohol and ranting). For instance, I see that Trump builds skyscrapers and Perigo doesn't. Trump makes gobs of money on the open market and Perigo doesn't. Trump cultivates a large beautiful family and Perigo doesn't. Trump is successful as a TV celebrity and Perigo isn't. And so on... Oh... I forgot. Trump wins elections and Perigo doesn't... Michael Who's Perigo? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now