Perry, glad to see you here and looking forward to your reply on the other thread about homosexuality, as there are some important points I'd like to see your answers on - whether it is here or there, I don't care. As regards what you say here;
It may seem that many people who post on this board are of the opinion that any moral judgements are ridiculous. However, our politically correct posters do share with the rest of non-psychopathic mankind an innate sense of right and wrong.
I agree absolutely. I am so tired of people making assumptions regarding the lack of moral compass of people with more liberal viewpoints, or the assumption some make that atheism gives one a moral carte blanche. It's good to hear you don't swallow rubbish like that.
Here's the real issue:
Like all totalitarians, marxists, humanists, and the politically correct want to squash all competition and are really after control, control, control.
Now, here we have guilt by association. Very weak arguementative techique. Cabbages. Kiwi Fruit. Peanuts. All want to photosynthesise and grow grow grow. Now, there we have undeniable similarity. Does your example have the same degree of similarity?
Well, NO.
Totalitarian; of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
... is not the same as a ...
Marxist; one who supports a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society)
... is not the same as a ...
Humanist; one who supports a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason)
... which is not the same as a totalitarian ...
They are different things Perry. Please don't do that. I like your posts, except when you get sloppy with definition and meaning to suit your arguement.
If you are trying to say that "certain groups want to squash all competition and are really after control, control, control", you would be better of saying that and not muddying the water with doubtful linkages.
I think you grab the word totalitarian because it means "...especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)", but you ignore it means "of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life", as it doesn't suit your arguement.
The people you attack cannot be described as totalitarian as they do not believe that society should be a "regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life", they believe that society should be based upon the freedom of the individual, freedom from undue restriction by the state, and lack of control of aspects of their lives that do not harm others.
Whatever. Let's see how your argument continues.
What the far left on this board does is immediately pounce on anyone who even hints at "right or wrong" because it tends to glide into Good and Evil.
I disagree. What the 'far left' (have your inaccurate little description if it makes you feel better Perry) does is immediately pounce on anyone who suggests that there is any determination of "right or wrong", other than that determined by things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the determination of whether or not harm to others occurs, or whether something is non-consensual or some similar provable reason why something is wrong.
Now, people can say "Blue is wrong coz I think so." People can say "Blue is wrong coz my book says so." These are opinions, and there is no way in the world that being blue should be descriminated against on the basis of those opinions. I am happy for people to say these things, even if I disagree with them, and am happy I have the freedom to disagree. Bad totalitarian marxist humanist oppressor of freedom that I am.
Now, if people can prove that being blue harms other people, or infringes upon the liberties of others, then maybe laws about being blue will be passed. It would be fair after all, if there's a genuine harm that can result from being blue, if something is done about it.
But if it is just opinion? Whose opinion? Why is it right? Is it the same the world over?
Now, if you can't see the difference between opinion of right and wrong and provable assertions of right or wrong based upon harm or other described criteria, well, I'm sorry.
This implies an outside standard and moral rules that cannot be changed by human authority. This is very unsettling to the self worshiper.
Ah, so it's now NOT okay to not believe in god, as if you are you are a self-worshipper? Could you PROVE this please. Not the existence of god silly... even you can't do that
I mean prove that it's wrong not to believe in god. Hang on. Aren't you doing what you say others are doing all the time?
They want to measure, quantify and science-ize everything. The secularists don't hate moral judgements because they think it to be foolish. Disney is foolish and it isn't attacked.
This sentence has grammar that really doesn't work. I'll come back to it if you tell me what it means, but, when you do, why is it wrong to want to "measure, quantify and science-ize everything"?
To the psuedo-marxist the crime is not morality, because even they have a form of that; the crime of morality isn't crime, it is the ALLEGIANCE it inspires. Since it is based on an exterior Source,
the marxists and humanists are jealous of the competition....that's all.
Watchtowerese my dear chap. You mentioned Marxists at the top of the paragraph, and are now waxing lyrical about Marxists, when I'm buggered if I know why you bought them up, other than a hope it might help your continuing arguement (that us bad naughty liberals shouldn't tell poor ickle conservatives when we think they are wrong, we should just stay quiet, and that we mustn't assert that someone saying something based soley on what is written down in a book only has an opinion unless they can back what's in the book with facts).
I'll give you a clue. It's irrelvant to the arguement, unless some Marxists turn up. Typical. Never a Marxist around when you need one.
Let's be a little more direct, eh?
Since it is based on an exterior Source, the marxists and humanists are jealous of the competition...
Don't you mean;
"Since it is based soley on the authority of a god that is claimed to exist, but cannot be proved, many people look to a quantifiable determination of right or wrong, as in a court of law, rather than old moral codes that got written down at some point."
I think that's a fairer representation of facts, don;t you?
It is difficult to have near total control over a population if they believe in moral absolutes. The leadership just might find themselves judged by such a population. Take away right and wrong, and all you need is a veneer of "science" or "expert" opinion and Whalla, you have Soviet America!
Ah, of course. How silly of me. It's a conspiracy. Perry, behave! You've proven NONE of that sentence, you're just pulling it up a flagpole to see if anyone will salute.
We have gone from a soceity where right and wrong was based on a book. Now we base it on harm, essentially speaking, and certain rights that are believed by many to be held by every human.
Now people are free to say if they think that a 'book based' morality is wrong, or whether they think a 'harm based' morality is wrong, or discuss specifics.
The problem comes when they disagree, as people with a 'book based' morality frequently present reasons for things being wrong that fail to meet the standards of 'wrong' of those with 'harm based' morality, and the fact something causes no harm is not a good enough reason for many 'book based' people to view an action described as bad in their book as right.
Get over it. No matter how you dress it up, that's the facts, and I'm sorry if you have trouble dealing with it, but it is the way things is my friend.
