Do Not Blame Muslims!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why the shift to future and present? i.e. straw man.

Are you confused, child?

Descriptive statements are about how the world IS.
Prescriptive statements are about how the world OUGHT to be.

I can't think of any meaningful prescriptive statements about the past. Can you?

You are the one who is confused.
The present will be the past the next moment.

[Logik]

You can do more by educating the skeptics and Muslims on the truth that the major part of Islam is objectively evil and malignant as support by the glaring evidence committed by SOME Muslims who are influenced and inspired to commit evil by their God.

You have confused yourself. I said I am convinced that Islam is Evil. I am convinced of your DESCRIPTION of Islam.

I didn't say I am convinced that I should do anything about or against Evil. I am not convinced of your PRESCRIPTION about Islam.

You need a different argument for that, but be warned - there is no argument that you can come up with that will convince me to do your bidding.

Such are the advantages of being able to think for myself.

[Logik]

You are the one who is confused.
The present will be the past the next moment.

Thank you, Captain Obvious! But indeed, the confusion seems to be yours.

The is-ought gap is not about the present becoming the past.

The is-ought gap is about the future (ought) becoming the present (is) and our opportunity to influence it.

You can choose to influence the future-becoming-the-present. You could say we "prescribe what the future ought to be".
You can also choose not to.

So I think I was correct all along when I pointed out that your arguments boil down to "I want X."?
Veritas Aequitas wants the future to have less Islam. <rationalization follows>

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are the one who is confused.
The present will be the past the next moment.

Thank you, Captain Obvious! But indeed, the confusion seems to be yours.

The is-ought gap is not about the present becoming the past.

The is-ought gap is about the future (ought) becoming the present (is) and our opportunity to influence it.

You can choose to influence the future-becoming-the-present. You could say we "prescribe what the future ought to be".
You can also choose not to.

So I think I was correct all along when I pointed out that your arguments boil down to "I want X."?
Veritas Aequitas wants the future to have less Islam. <rationalization follows>

You need to read up the original issues raised by Hume re the IS-OUGHT dichotomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

The IS-OUGHT is fundamentally a moral issue, i.e. one cannot demand compliance to some absolute moral commands from empirical events and evidences.

[Logik]

You need to read up the original issues raised by Hume re the IS-OUGHT dichotomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

The IS-OUGHT is fundamentally a moral issue, i.e. one cannot demand compliance to some absolute moral commands from empirical events and evidences.

Indeed. You are still making my argument for me.

You want less Islam, but you can't make me do your bidding. So you are using argumentation as means of persuasion/recruitment for your cause.

Cool. But I am not buying anything you are selling. So you are wasting your evangelism on me.

Which is precisely why I am asking the question that I am asking: By what mechanisms do arguments convince if the "is-ought" gap cannot be traversed?

Allowing yourself to be convinced is allowing yourself to traverse an untraversable gap. A paradox!

[Veritas Aequitas]

You need to read up the original issues raised by Hume re the IS-OUGHT dichotomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

The IS-OUGHT is fundamentally a moral issue, i.e. one cannot demand compliance to some absolute moral commands from empirical events and evidences.

Indeed. You are still making my argument for me.

You want less Islam, but you can't make me do your bidding. So you are using argumentation as means of persuasion/recruitment for your cause.

Cool. But I am not buying anything you are selling. So you are westing your evangelism on me.

Which is precisely why I am asking the question that I am asking: By what mechanisms do arguments convince if the "is-ought" gap cannot be traversed?

The mechanism is via the presentation of objective facts supported by arguments and evidences plus philosophy-proper with emphasis on the Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.
The argument is, if Islam is objectively evil then morally one has to deal with evil as in this case.
Why the ought - seemingly?
If is not the ought but in this case it has to do what is naturally human, i.e. be a natural moral agent as one is born to be., e.g.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It [Morality] is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

There is more to the above [Philosophy of Morality] but note it is off topic from the OP, Do Not Blame Muslims!

[Logik]

The mechanism is via the presentation of objective facts supported by arguments and evidences plus philosophy-proper with emphasis on the Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.
The argument is, if Islam is objectively evil then morally one has to deal with evil as in this case.
Why the ought - seemingly?
If is not the ought but in this case it has to do what is naturally human, i.e. be a natural moral agent as one is born to be., e.g.

You are giving me a what, not a how. I am asking for a how. How do any of those things traverse an untraversable gap?

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It [Morality] is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

You don't have any kids, do you? Babies are the most selfish creatures I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with!
They want what they want when they want it - their needs always come first, fairness be damned!

[Veritas Aequitas]

The mechanism is via the presentation of objective facts supported by arguments and evidences plus philosophy-proper with emphasis on the Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.
The argument is, if Islam is objectively evil then morally one has to deal with evil as in this case.
Why the ought - seemingly?
If is not the ought but in this case it has to do what is naturally human, i.e. be a natural moral agent as one is born to be., e.g.

You are giving me a what, not a how.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It [Morality] is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

You don't have any kids, do you? Babies are the most selfish creatures I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with!

Yes, selfish in one way and it has to be.

The research with babies proved that there is evidence there is an inherent developing and potential faculty of morality within humans.
Why the research is done on babies less than 12 months who are not influenced greatly by NURTURE is to prove that we human has this moral potential as a NATURE.

This potential for natural moral is normally suppressed, inhibited and corrupted by nurturing factors.

This is why humanity in the future must identified this inherent moral faculty and develop it to expedite our moral propensity positively.
We are on our way with the advances in the mapping of the whole human brain.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

I am confident based on the efforts I have put in, for any higher counter or question you bring, I will have a one-up answer waiting for you.

[Logik]

The mechanism is via the presentation of objective facts supported by arguments and evidences plus philosophy-proper with emphasis on the Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.
The argument is, if Islam is objectively evil then morally one has to deal with evil as in this case.
Why the ought - seemingly?
If is not the ought but in this case it has to do what is naturally human, i.e. be a natural moral agent as one is born to be., e.g.

You are giving me a what, not a how.

You don't have any kids, do you? Babies are the most selfish creatures I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with!

Yes, selfish in one way and it has to be.

The research with babies proved that there is evidence there is an inherent developing and potential faculty of morality within humans.
Why the research is done on babies less than 12 months who are not influenced greatly by NURTURE is to prove that we human has this moral potential as a NATURE.

This potential for natural moral is normally suppressed, inhibited and corrupted by nurturing factors.

This is why humanity in the future must identified this inherent moral faculty and develop it to expedite our moral propensity positively.
We are on our way with the advances in the mapping of the whole human brain.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

I am confident based on the efforts I have put in, for any higher counter or question you bring, I will have a one-up answer waiting for you.

All that one-up-manship and you still don't grasp the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements. All science/research is descriptive!

Just because you and I are born with "intrinsic morality" doesn't mean we can't choose a different path in life.

Selfishness is sufficient to suppress morality. I want your phone - I take it from you!

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are giving me a what, not a how.



You don't have any kids, do you? Babies are the most selfish creatures I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with!

Yes, selfish in one way and it has to be.

The research with babies proved that there is evidence there is an inherent developing and potential faculty of morality within humans.
Why the research is done on babies less than 12 months who are not influenced greatly by NURTURE is to prove that we human has this moral potential as a NATURE.

This potential for natural moral is normally suppressed, inhibited and corrupted by nurturing factors.

This is why humanity in the future must identified this inherent moral faculty and develop it to expedite our moral propensity positively.
We are on our way with the advances in the mapping of the whole human brain.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

I am confident based on the efforts I have put in, for any higher counter or question you bring, I will have a one-up answer waiting for you.

And you still don't grasp the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements. All science/research is descriptive!

Just because you and I are born with "intrinsic morality" doesn't mean we can't choose a different path in life.

I know the difference descriptive and prescriptive statements which can be very general and applicable in many perspective, examples;

The fact that some prescriptive rules are valuable does not mean that every grammatical injunction should be obeyed.

Simmons knows she faces an uphill battle—but her goal this time around is to be prescriptive about the problem.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prescriptive?s=t

The IS-OUGHT philosophical problem is descriptive and prescriptive re moral rules which are supposedly absolute, e.g. "because God said so."

Intrinsic Morality meant all humans has the potential to be Good, and thus each human must develop that faculty regardless of whatever path one choose in life.

[Logik]

The IS-OUGHT philosophical problem is descriptive and prescriptive re moral rules which are supposedly absolute, e.g. "because God said so."

You are mistaken. The is-ought philosophical problem applies to any and all future events. It is not exclusive to morality.

Ought I water my garden tomorrow? Why?
Ought I clean up my garage tomorrow? Why?

Ought society spend more taxes on improving public transport? Why?
Ought society work towards making The Internet accessible to all? Why?

That you cannot see it is all about shaping the future is your own naïveté.

"because God said so" is just an attempt at overcoming the gap by appeal to authority.
Now you bow to "evidence, logic and reason". Different authority - same problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The IS-OUGHT philosophical problem is descriptive and prescriptive re moral rules which are supposedly absolute, e.g. "because God said so."

You are mistaken. The is-ought philosophical problem applies to any and all future events. It is not exclusive to morality.

Ought I water my garden tomorrow? Why?
Ought I dust clean up my garage tomorrow? Why?

Ought society spend more tax money on improving public transport? Why?

The above are not serious philosophical issues relating to 'ought'.

The ought is, you ought not to rob a bank.
Try to disregard that 'ought' and note what will be the consequences.

You ought to obey your boss' instructions, company's SOP and carry out your responsibilities.
Try to ignore the above oughts and note the consequences.

What is serious with the issue of ought is from;
Maxim: 'you ought to obey God to kill non-believers because God said so!'
if I don't agree with the above, why should I commit that 'ought' from a God which I do not believe exists.

[Logik]

The above are not serious philosophical issues relating to 'ought'.

The ought is, you ought not to rob a bank.

What ruler for "seriousness" are you using?

Try to disregard that 'ought' and note what will be the consequences.

These guys didn't think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Bank_robbery

You ought to obey your boss' instructions, company's SOP and carry out your responsibilities.
Try to ignore the above oughts and note the consequences.

I don't know where you work, but my boss pays me so that I tell him what to do.
I am hired for my expertise - not my obedience.

It is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission is in my company's SOP.

What is serious with the issue of ought is from;
Maxim: 'you ought to obey God to kill non-believers because God said so!'
if I don't agree with the above, why should I commit that 'ought' from a God which I do not believe exists.

No different to "you ought to oppose Islam because it's Evil"

Not sure how/why your brain is unable to comprehend that obeying rules is still an issue which relates to the is-ought gap!

Ought one obey rules? Why ?

Descriptive statement: rules exist.
Prescriptive statement: rules must be obeyed.
Alternative prescriptive statement: rules must be broken.
Alternative prescriptive statement: rules must be re-written.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above are not serious philosophical issues relating to 'ought'.

The ought is, you ought not to rob a bank.

What ruler for "seriousness" are you using?

Try to disregard that 'ought' and note what will be the consequences.

These guys didn't think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Bank_robbery

You ought to obey your boss' instructions, company's SOP and carry out your responsibilities.
Try to ignore the above oughts and note the consequences.

I don't know where you work, but my boss pays me so that I tell him what to do.
I am hired for my expertise - not my obedience.

I did not mean not obeying the boss' personal instructions like what Lewinsky ought with Bill Clinton.

Generally the boss' instruction is aligned with your agreed duty per employment contract not something outside the contract.

What is serious with the issue of ought is from;
Maxim: 'you ought to obey God to kill non-believers because God said so!'
if I don't agree with the above, why should I commit that 'ought' from a God which I do not believe exists.

No different to "you ought to oppose Islam because it's Evil"

It is totally different.
Why Islam is evil is supported and proven with evidence and arguments, thus is objective.
There are loads of evil elements in the verses of the Quran which one can read and the results and evil consequences, one type is this;


God exists by default is via faith, not by proofs nor reason thus not objective.

[Logik]

I did not mean not obeying the boss' personal instructions like what Lewinsky ought with Bill Clinton.

Generally the boss' instruction is aligned with your agreed duty per employment contract not something outside the contract.

It doesn't change a thing. Still an is-ought problem.

Descriptive statement: I am contractually obliged to fulfil my duty.
Prescriptive statement: I ought to breach my contract and ignore my boss' instructions.

Why? Because I can! Well aware of the consequences (being fired) - I can still CHOOSE not to obey my boss.

It is totally different.

No. It isn't. It's exactly the same pattern.

Why Islam is evil is supported and proven with evidence and arguments, thus is objective.

It doesn't matter WHY islam is Evil if I already agree that it is Evil. I will repeat it for you again. I agree - Islam IS Evil.

The is-ought gap you have failed to bridged isn't "WHY is Islam Evil".
The is-ought gap you have failed to bridge is: Why ought we act against Evil?