[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tirsales

You know .. normally thats the point where I would quote something like "if it smells like a fish, looks like a fish and writes like a fish its clearly a troll", but this time I will settle for:
Oh yes, you must be perfect. There is not the slightest chance that *you* might have made some mistakes (e.g. misstating your posts). It is quite obvious that everybody else is mistaken (it must be a conspiracy!).

When some people, whom I have been discussing an issue with, understand my point and rationally reply to my point and others who have not been invovled in the discussion come in and claim I have stated something which I have not(even quoting a passage that simply did not back up their claim even though it seemed similiar on the surface) then I will assume that the new comers have misunderstood me.

Yes I may have mistated but since the ones I was discussing the issue with seemed to understand and respond to my post then I think the balance of probabilities lies with the mistake being made by the new comers.

Originally Posted by tirsales

But it is - it might not appeal to you, it might not be dependable to nowadays western standards, but it might be a moral standard.

Nope, it doesn't conform to any accepted definition of what constitutes a moral code and therefore I will not consider it as one. Just as I will not consider an orange to be an apple because it does not conform to any definition of an apple. If you feel it necessary to consider something that does not conform to the accepted definition of what you are discussing that is your prerogative.

Originally Posted by tirsales

I will not quote you again. You perhaps did not intend to do so - but you did. I quoted your post more then once.

Nope sorry, what you quoted did not back up your claim of what I stated.

I will admit that what you quoted was similiar in content to what you claim I stated but it was not the same. In short your claim was another straw man representation of what I said. It is always easier to argue that way so I'm not surprised you continually employ the tactic.

Originally Posted by tirsales

As your choices were on the lines of "either you are not a native speaker or you are obnoxious" you prefer settling for "obnoxious" (and speech impaired, because you criticized my language rather harshly) then non-native? I believe this to be strange. But okay.

As I stated, and you have quoted me further down, I would prefer to think you were inadvertantly misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I was saying due to your lack of fluency with English and not that you were being intentionally obnoxious.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yeah, like that. Alternatively you could just accept that you might have phrased some questions or exclamations wrong...

Yes I could accept that but as I said above, considering the people I was discussing the issue with seemed to understand and respond to my point, I am going to continue to assume the point was understandable, and that you have misunderstood, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by tirsales

In this case? Dont argue with stuff you dont understand.

You claimed I was not a mathematician. I state I am well versed in mathematics. You then say that this is different to being a mathematician.

So are you now arguing that you can only argue with stuff if you are a cetified expert in that area?

Or maybe your original comment was a sarcastic one line insult meant to imply that you thought my understanding of mathematics was flawed?

Originally Posted by tirsales

a) you need to discuss this numbers to proof that they are not affected
b) you said that psychopaths are statistical outliers - thus not relevant - but provided no proof of this theory. I stated that there were roughly 2-3% percent - still an outlier?
Yes? Then we can discard publishers from this discussion - they are not near 2-3% of the population.
(Yes, this is a grave exaggeration. I still hope that my point is clear).

So you come up with a number, with no supporting evidence to back up your claim, and then have a go at me because I did not back up my claim.

The term hypocrite comes to mind again.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Most moral codes across history would thus be "ravings of psychopaths"?

No, because that was not what their moral code consisted of.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Actually - no. You state an assumption and I say its invalid because .. Whats wrong with that?

No, you stated what you thought I meant, you then claim that what I stated was invalid.

What is wrong with that is what you thought I meant is not what I meant or what I stated.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Hmm, you perhaps should be re-reading all your posts since you started arguing with me.

No, you started out with a sarcastic and rude one line insult and then progressed on to stating I claimed something I did not.

You responded to my post first, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Because they are real-world examples (not far-from-real prerequisites).
To ascertain the wrongness under those circumstances? Okay. Still it wont tell you anything about the prior discussion (and thats the only thing I criticized..)

So again, you twist what I am meaning to suit your own purposes. Once again, the issue you want to discuss is ok but the issue I want to discuss is not. Again, hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Never did I say that no proof means it does not exist.....
......You might want to argue against it......

No, what you said was it had no meaning and not relevant so why should I bother to try to argue about it with you?

Originally Posted by tirsales

??? When did I stated something even remotely like this?

Post number 860.......

Originally Posted by tirsales

But: I do believe that "points that cannot be proven" have no meaning - I could just as well state "piracy is actually the only thing that keeps the business working". I believe that we both can agree that without prove this claim would be worthless.
Same rules for everything please - no prove, no meaning.

Does that sound "remotely like" you saying that you believe points that can not be proven have no meaning?

Originally Posted by tirsales

Sure. You did not get my points, but thats okay - it never was more then a hypothetically example to further explain my point (even better because of this addition )

Oh, I got your point, just wanted to show that when someone intentionally misinterprets you and misrepresents your point then it is not really constructive is it?

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yeah, okay. We might want to quit this discussion because we (clearly) have differing definitions of "moral absolute" (and yours is far from any I have read in Philosophy so far, but thats okay).

Well it is not different to what I have read from over 35 years of interest in the subject.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Sure. It's my definition of a morale absolute - because clearly a definition that includes a long list of "ifs" is not an absolute.
We might want to get a common definition ... See?

Why bother trying to come up with a common definition about what constitutes a moral code(and not what a moral code must be) when there is already one out there.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yes - nothing can apply to all situations, thus there are no moral absolutes. You are changing the definition of a moral absolute to warrant your thesis that there are morale absolutes.

No, blanket statements can not apply to all situations and that is why they are not moral absolutes.

Specific statements can apply to specific situations and therefore may be moral absolutes.

Originally Posted by tirsales

You might consider saying "there are situations which are always right or wrong" instead of "these are moral absolutes".
A moral absolute would e.g. be "You shall not kill" (a better translation would be "you shall not murder", but thats a completely different discussion).

No that is your idea of what might be a moral absolute.

Originally Posted by tirsales

I consider proof something that will be considered a proof in a court.

Eye witness testimony would be considered proof in court. So would victim statements. Again, maybe not enough to be convicted but still proof. Try being a little more specific about your meaning.

Originally Posted by tirsales

You might want to argue this with any criminal court - they are always making those assumptions.
I do not know how much you have read about the psychology of child molesters - but the chances that a (real, dangerous, untreated and not feeling guilty) child molester will go on are very, very high.

Since you feel qualified to make remarks on my mathematical ability I would expect a higher understanding of basic probability.

Odds that something will occure being very very high is different to "you know without a doubt that this thing will occur", which is what you stated. Do I need to find the exact quote?

Originally Posted by tirsales

Never did i say you did. I only stated this because its the most common argument in any discussion about moral absolutes (in fact its (nearly) only theologists arguing 'pro moral absolute').

It is a convenient straw man again. Bring up something I have not even discussed and argue your point from that standpoint because it is easier than dealing with my point directly and makes your argument seem stronger.

Originally Posted by tirsales

You accused me of "trying to be obnoxious". "Never did I try to be obnoxious and never have I been intentionally obnoxious" are two different things - thus the two separate statements - but not so different that they would warrant further explanation - or so I thought.

You were obnoxious, you claimed you were not. You then claimed "well not intentionally so".

You claimed you understood both english and my point, that being the case, as I stated earlier, I am left with only one conclusion, you were being intentionally obnoxious.

Originally Posted by tirsales

You might consider cutting back on your accusations of "not understanding the language".

You might want to stop claiming I have stated something I have not.

Originally Posted by tirsales

"Accepted definition" - nope. We clearly should consider whether oranges are apples - if only for the two sentences it takes to argue against it.

If you wish to waste time arguing about something that already has a clear definition then that is your prerogative.

I choose not to waste my time in such circumstances. Especially with someone who has come to the discussion late.

Originally Posted by tiresales

There is not. No, really, there is not - otherwise "Ethics" would be far simpler. Apart from that you might consider stating a source for your argument - its your theory, you should back it up.

Since you have quoted Wikipedia, I will too.....
"In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions."
Note the reference to specified conditions and espoused by all rational people.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yeah? Hmm - state your source.

You haven't stated your sources for many of your points.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Well - you are arguing with the big authority (it is clearly accepted) without giving any damned source... All your arguments so far can be reduced to "because I say so".

Same as you so what's the difference?

Originally Posted by tirsales

Thats one alternative - the other one includes you making some errors - clearly impossible (in your eyes).

Nope, not impossible but as I said, since many others seemed to understand(if disagree with) my point then I am going to continue assuming that you, who came late to the discussion, have misunderstood me. Whether by choice, because you want to be intentionally rude, or for other reasons, I no longer care.

Cheers,
PKFFW