Inquirer stated: source post
Spatial Mind stated: source post
You can pick it apart Inq. Just try.
Also I thought I said something about me catering to your laziness already.
Come on. Your argument, your responsibility. I also have this feeling you'll just go "oh, but I never said it meant that" if I try to define it in terms that can be compared to Libya.
Oh so I'm responsible for your intake of information now ?
I told you plain and simple, the American dream is based on the opportunity to work and do well for one self.
There's nothing new in the link and following results I provided you.
You ought to know it's better to look into things for yourself when in doubt.
Get on my level, then we'll be pages ahead instead of being stuck on you trying to solve the mystery of definitions and meanings of simplistic terms.
Spatial Mind stated: source post
bla bla bla
On that note I don't argue if absolute morality is real or not, I'm just commenting on your claim, and it hasn't been productive. It's worse than me having to stop, and go back and do your research for you, while you're hard of understanding my perspective to begin with.
Leon (and you by extension) argue that only relative morality is faced with this problem (hypocrisy), and your argument does not prove this. I'm saying people that adhere to either absolute or relative morality can be hypocrites. Absolute morality by itself (without people) cannot be hypocritical, and I never claimed that.
Morality doesn't revolve around being self centered, while relative morality does.
It's fine to tolerate people's bullshit, however there are limits to that.
Relative morality IS the very thing you theorize about "hypocritical absolute morality", which has no static foundation, It's counterfeit morality. It's us and not them, or me and not you. Relative morality is willing to change to suit itself, while morality remains the same. There is no hypocrisy in morality.
Spatial Mind stated: source post
Inquirer stated: source post
I asked for specific arguments or points, preferably facts that can be verified, and you give me this?
It is a fact. The show isn't good without it's upsets. Violence, war, dramas we wouldn't wish it on ourselves or our environments.
I also mentioned there it doesn't matter to you, because it doesn't stand out what direction we're headed on that note.
It is not a fact. First of all, you simply assume violence in movies is bad without proving why that is by pointing to its effects (effects that can be measured). Secondly, you do not show why the overall evolution of morals is declining. Your opinions are not facts, yet you treat them that way.
I told you the first time, and I'll put it another way for a 3rd time. You can't see it. You're desensitized.
- Violence and other acts of immorality is used to entertain us, we are entertained by it.
- For what we enjoy in entertainment to happen to us, will traumatize us.
- Turkey had multiple bomb attacks, the west, including the masses has no reaction to it. The people weren't told to weep.
- Belgium gets more attention. Now I know this is closer to home for you, but not me. Still Paris got more attention because people were encouraged by the media to make a big deal over people they never knew, in a place most of them will never visit.
- In the 80's ( no internet ) there was a televised movie about a nuclear bomb going off in the states. Some would say this movie was ahead of it's time, cause when they aired it, the reception was so intense, they had to open telephone help hotlines to help people cope with the terror. That doesn't happen today, while the visual arts are much more realistic and twisted.
There's the effects you've been looking for. Very subtle, but over time, less considerate. We're not immoral in our entirety. We already know the next generation will out due us at everything we do, including the bullshit, as we've been outdoing our predecessors at everyhting.
Spatial Mind stated: source post
The prime creator has no end, nor a beginning.
Until science says anything about this, it's too far out for you.
But it doesn't have to be 'intelligent'.
But it is intelligent.
All things to the core are made up of the same material.
The DNA alone is sophisticated coding, more complex than all the software we've ever made. The genome carries out the instructions to create a living breathing organism, DNA strands, each alive mind you, being pulled together to fit like a perfect glove under the instructions of 3D coding, to deliver masterpieces. The animals, the people. This is ingenious work from the ground up.
Same old argument....
- Light exists, so we have eyes. This is not a coincidence, or the outcome of randomness.
- The ear detects sound. A consciousness connected these dots too.
- The gas we breath is conveniently invisible so the light can pass through it, and we can see better. ( How many things are as invisible as air ? )
- We're dead without the plants, and the plants are dead without creatures that breath. ( Again, this is a set up )
- The Amino acid does not replicate itself when put in the correct conditions to prove the theory of evolution. It actually dies.
- There is a consciousness behind the design of all creatures, as every creature is equipped with what they need to be as they are.
- There are countless species on the Earth, that function.
- What they call junk code in DNA, is there to be carried on in the event it's activated in future generations. There is no junk code in the DNA.
No matter how long you stare into nothingness, you will NEVER find any produce. No ideas, no mistakes, no movement, no coincidence, and no masterpieces.
