premio53 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm surprised premio sincerely believes that genocide is not immoral.
I'm not surprised that you are a liar either. You know you lied when you made this post.
So I shouldn't be surprised that you believe that genocide is not immoral? Oh, you, sir, are vague.
I'm teasing out your stance by encouraging you to explicitly make a claim.
1. If you cannot determine if X is moral or immoral, (where X = extreme cases such as genocide),
2. and if you refuse to clearly answer questions,
3. and if you continue repeating your argument,
then three possibilities:
4. you lack the capability to engage in a rational discussion (e.g. using logic, reason, making your words coherent, etc.).
5. your argument has no standing--(and you know it but are afraid to risk admitting it)
6. something is psychologically wrong with you.
So, let's see if we can discover the soundness of #4, #5, and #6:
premio53 wrote:Symmetry wrote:Weird- that was what you wanted to discuss.
What I am discussing is the fact that without any
moral absolutes you have no right to judge the practice of
cannabilism as practiced by many primitive tribes or
genocide as practiced by Hitler or
any other practice that other societies may deem moral. Period.
and
Wow what? If homosexuality is morally right, why is beastiality wrong? If Hitler can declare Jews as non persons, what is the difference between killing Jews and unborn babies in the womb? Wow! Where do you stop?
(and more posts!)
In other words,
1. "without any
moral absolutes you have no right to judge [the morality of any action]". (False, using logic doesn't require a right to logic).
2. Without moral absolutes*, we have no other criteria for establishing the morality of any action. (False, we can use logic. Well, most of us can).
3. *(Implied caveat), premioc Christianity has access to specific moral absolutes. (Unknown, but if #3 = True, then why not reject genocide? Does premioc Christianity permit genocide?)
3a. #3 must be true because premio has explicitly made moral claims involving sexual desire, using eyeballs, and thought crimes.
4. "Nothing is morally wrong if you deem it to be so in your own eyes!" (Odd, using only our eyes is an insufficient standard in moral philosophy).
5. " The entire New Testament written by the apostles are what define Christian doctrine." (Unknown, but the implications of accepting #5 will lead to contradictory/wrong positions--e.g. stoning people not with marijuana).
6. "Only someone who is mentally sick would believe it morally OK to lust after children." (False, other mentally sick people might not believe it morally okay to lust after children).
7. "Whatever lust one may have doesn't make those desires morally right." (True, determining the morality of an action requires substitutes, e.g. logic).
Well, there's plenty of problems with your stance.
My #4 seems sound. My #5 is unknown but could likely be true. My #6 is unknown--but you'll well on your way of providing further support of its truthfulness.