Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
If someone tells you they're an astronaut when they know you know they're not, they've lied openly.
It's lyin'. Covered that over there. Go read it.
And: if you believe I've been naughty, provide a citation or two.
How is the hypocritical application of double standards lying?
Hypocrisy is the application of double standards. It's do as I say, not as I do. It's lyin'.
I haven't lied in any way. But, again, if you believe I have, provide evidence.
Put up or shut up (or not...I can leave you to vent alone).
Well you did criticise Beinda for only referencing half your argument did you not?
You do that all the time. Ignoring for instance when I draw the distinction between the moral status of truths and lies by pointing to one that does need excuses and one that doesn't, you took half the point and said you had already made the same point. So, yeah, hypocrisy. You did do hypocrisy and it's weird that you are fighting that one so hard.
But like I said, that just made hypocrisy the next thing in line for this treatment. There's lots of stuff that is bad but which your impoverished little theory cannot account for. Today I am asing you to account for the wrongness of a simple lack of reciprocity... applying lenient standards to yourself and tougher ones to other people. You shouldn't need to refactor it as something else to make the case.
Well you did criticise Beinda for only referencing half your argument did you not?
She left half out, yeah. Never said she lied about nuthin'. If I thought she had, I woulda said so, to her.
You do that all the time. Ignoring for instance when I draw the distinction between the moral status of truths and lies by pointing to one that does need excuses and one that doesn't, you took half the point and said you had already made the same point.
Cuz I did. I didn't lie. You just don't read too good.
applying lenient standards to yourself and tougher ones to other people.
Oh my, the guy whose morality is a jumble of unjustifiable customs & conventions (just becuz over and over) accuses me of being self-lenient?
Well you did criticise Beinda for only referencing half your argument did you not?
She left half out, yeah. Never said she lied about nuthin'. If I thought she had, I woulda said so, to her.
You do that all the time. Ignoring for instance when I draw the distinction between the moral status of truths and lies by pointing to one that does need excuses and one that doesn't, you took half the point and said you had already made the same point.
Cuz I did. I didn't lie. You just don't read too good.
You did the hypocrisy, you got caught red handed. You can't just change the subject by being aggressively obtuse.
applying lenient standards to yourself and tougher ones to other people.
Oh my, the guy whose morality is a jumble of unjustifiable customs & conventions (just becuz over and over) accuses me of being self-lenient?
amoralist, assess thyself
What else you got?
Henry. Why are you avoiding the question?
Today I am asing you to account for the wrongness of a simple lack of reciprocity... applying lenient standards to yourself and tougher ones to other people.
Today I am asing you to account for the wrongness of a simple lack of reciprocity... applying lenient standards to yourself and tougher ones to other people.
Okay. In the meantime, you should think about that reciprocity problem.
Your entire theory depends upon a single reciprocal property right and that reciprocity is the actual underlying principle of your thing. So you need a much more convincing answer for the hypocrisy thing, and you can't afford to ground it on hypocrisy -> lies -> theft because that ruins your whole day.
There's a reason why every single religion has a version of the golden rule (do unto others as...), and why Kant's categorical imperative centres also on the subject of hypocrisy.
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:07 amThe well known rest-room dilemma is due firstly to criminals who feel entitled to interfere with others whenever they choose, and secondly the bad design of public rest rooms. These should all have attendants who issue tickets for individual private spaces.
Bathrooms being "designed" for male and female, wasn't a "problem", until recently, in Western Civilization.
We're going too far off track though.
These 'purposes' and 'meanings' of life, are also off track. When young children are misled, and lied about their gender, then the Nature of Reality is off track. Maybe getting rid of God (morality? ethics?) does have something to do with all of this?
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:22 pmAt any point, have you stopped to wonder if you might have overintepreted what it means to say that morals have more in common with customs, fashions and beliefs than they do with objectively demonstrable fact?
You are misrepresenting your oponent and if you get a sense that they disrespect you in turn, you might have earned it.
How are they subjective when homosexuality and transexuality can be linked directly to the rise and fall of imperial societies/empires?
When economic boons come after great military victories, and hedonism makes societies weak given enough time?
