Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

[Age]

Also, what 'we' can see and notice here is another prime example of what was a very common occurrence 'back then'. The adult human beings would just about never provide an example of what they do wrong, and instead would always 'try to justify' everything they do, and like in the prime example here, which could be referred to as 'virtue signalling', they would instead of giving an example/s of the 'wrong' they do, they turn the 'wrong' around completely so much that they try to come across as doing 'it' for good or right purposes and so they try to come across as though they are good people instead.

I can see in my absence Age has not changed regarding at least one of his core negative beliefs about humans.

I can see in "Iwannaplato's" absence it has not changed and has not learned anything here while it was away, especially regarding its beliefs and in being absolute closed.

Almost never,' he says.

No I never. 'We' can clearly see here "iwannaplato's" reading and comprehension skills have not improved at all in its absence.

Perhaps he has little experience socially with people.

Perhaps "iwannaplato" has little experience in not just reading others but also being social with them.

He seems unaware that many people are quite capable of admitting things they did wrong and apologizing, a must in many long term relationships, for example marriages.

Because "iwannaplato" is so closed it sees things from its perspective only and so continually misreads what was actually being talked about and meant. "iwannaplato" also lacks the ability to seek out confirmation and clarity and so will only see what it wants to, even when what it sees is so terribly narrowed, closed, Wrong, and/or even outright False.

Absolutely nothing mentioned here by this one was even being talked about. This one is so far off the mark that it could not get any further away from what I was actually talking about here.

And who also manage not to justify away their apology and/or imply it was actually virtuous. Nor does he seem aware that there are people who apologize too often or have a tendency to find fault in themselves, even when they are not at fault, but certainly when they are.

Again, this one could not be further afield here.

This one really does need some lessons in reading and comprehension, and especially some in how to obtain and gain clarification, and clarity.

But, because "iwannaplato" believes that it does not misread and misunderstand me here, it will not consider seeking some help in learning how to read and understand my words here.

Next it will probably start accusing me that it is all my fault why it misunderstands and misses just about everything I write and say here.

Perhaps this has to do with Age's childhood and/or adulthood.

How "iwannaplato" is 'now' has absolutely everything to do with its past experiences in childhood and in adulthood hitherto, obviously.

Perhaps the people around him 'almost never' admitted they did something wrong and could not provide examples when asked.

Why does this one believe that I have been done wrong by?

Maybe "iwannaplato" has been abused so much and so badly throughout its life that it thinks or believes the same has happened to others.

Perhaps "iwannaplato" only sees 'blame' in words, which are not even there, because it is continually 'blaming' others for the way that it is now.

This of course is unfortunate. But he need not continue to 'almost' universalize his own experiences and spread his negative judgments.

Yet, here is "iwannaplato' continually 'seeing' its own experiences in others, and spreading its own negativity and negative judgements.

Yes, Age is noticing a real human pattern, but his 'almost' universalizing his negative judgments of humans is toxic.

And, very sadly and unfortunately, "iwannaplato" cannot see and recognise the amount of negative judgements it makes of others here and how toxic this really can be on and towards some here.

One wonders if he can admit that, or will he turn his negative judgment into a kind of virtue? Or will he assume that his beliefs need no justification, but others must thoroughly justify his negative beliefs about them and others? Or both?

Why would one like you even begin to 'wonder' things like this?

What 'we' can clearly see here is that "iwannaplato" appears to not have lost any of its interest in 'me', I its absence here.

Why does 'iwannaplato" want to keep sharing so many negative beliefs about me and others here?

Does "iwannaplato" even realise just how much negativity and toxicity it brings to this forum?

There was far less negativity and toxicity here when there was an absence of "iwannaplato".

Or will he continue to pretend he does not have beliefs?

Will this one keep believing that it is only others who bring toxicity here?

What a Truly closed one this one is.

This one is so absolutely closed that it actually believes that you human beings cannot live and survive without beliefs. Which is beyond absolute stupidity when delved into and looked at thoroughly.

Will "iwannaplato" ever show openness and intelligence here?

Also, noticed is "iwannaplato's" judging and condemnation of others has not diminished since it's absence. In fact from its few new posts it looks like "iwannaplato" has come back even more judgmental and more condemning of others here.

Nothing I was talking about and meaning "iwannaplato" has mentioned and referred to at all. All "iwannaplato" has done here, once again, was to 'look at' the other, make negative judgements, and criticize 'the writer'.

I suggest that this one 'changes', 'looks at' 'the words' instead, and only, and only concentrates on 'trying to attack' what is 'actually meant' only.

And, this is best done by not assuming what was meant a s seeking out help, or at least clarification, first.

That way "iwannaplato" will not end up being so Wrong, so often.

[LuckyR]

Thank you.

Could one actually 'violate' one's own moral codes?

If yes, then how, exactly, do you 'violate' your own moral codes? And, will you provide 'us' with some examples of whe you do it?

For me it is a violation of my moral code to cheat at a game.

So, what, exactly, do you do to 'violate' your own, personal, moral code here?

In other words, how, 'exactly', do you overcome your own 'moralness'?

Or, what is the process involved, exactly, in a human being to override its own sense of 'right'?

But since moral "rightness" is only one variable in the complex matrix which is human decision making, I may conclude that while the quality of not following the rules of a game are: wrong, that the quantity of this violation can in certain circumstances be: miniscule.

Here 'we' can see another prime example of another way these adult human beings, back in 'the olden days' when this was being written, to use to try to 'justify' the 'wrongness' that they each 'knew' that they were doing.

Oh and by the way, there is absolutely nothing complex about any of your human beings decision makings at all That is; after one discovers, or learns, and understands and 'knows' how the Mind and the brain work, anyway.

Being miniscule, there are cases where other considerations besides moral rightness outweigh them and, for example I may let my young daughter beat me at a card game.

So, where is the 'cheating' here, exactly.

Also, what 'we' can see and notice here is another prime example of what was a very common occurrence 'back then'. The adult human beings would just about never provide an example of what they do wrong, and instead would always 'try to justify' everything they do, and like in the prime example here, which could be referred to as 'virtue signalling', they would instead of giving an example/s of the 'wrong' they do, they turn the 'wrong' around completely so much that they try to come across as doing 'it' for good or right purposes and so they try to come across as though they are good people instead.

Which is, exactly, why these adult beings, back then, never actually changed, for the better, and thus why 'the world', itself, took so, so very long to become the Truly peaceful place that it is 'now', after when this was being written.

I asked this one, 'How, exactly, do you 'violate' your own moral codes?'

But 'we' never end up getting told 'how' and instead get told of one 'miniscule' example, which it then is trying to claim it does 'this' because it is a 'good father'.

Instead of asking for more and more explanation, why don't you provide your own counterexamples to attempt to refute what you disagree with?

[Iwannaplato]

Instead of asking for more and more explanation, why don't you provide your own counterexamples to attempt to refute what you disagree with?

Because he thinks he has a special nature and is not bound by the expectations he has of others.

[Skepdick]

Instead of asking for more and more explanation, why don't you provide your own counterexamples to attempt to refute what you disagree with?

Because he thinks he has a special nature and is not bound by the expectations he has of others.

Of course he is thpethial.

[Age]

Instead of asking for more and more explanation, why don't you provide your own counterexamples to attempt to refute what you disagree with?

Because he thinks he has a special nature and is not bound by the expectations he has of others.

This one thinks it can just keep judging and judging others, and never be wrong.

it also believes that its own very narrowed and closed views and beliefs are actually what is true and right.

This one here could not, again, be more wrong here and could not spread more Falsehoods, even if it wanted to and tried to.

I will, again, suggest it starts trying to understand others, instead of only seeing things from its own obviously very narrowed and closed views only.

[Age]

For me it is a violation of my moral code to cheat at a game.

So, what, exactly, do you do to 'violate' your own, personal, moral code here?

In other words, how, 'exactly', do you overcome your own 'moralness'?

Or, what is the process involved, exactly, in a human being to override its own sense of 'right'?

But since moral "rightness" is only one variable in the complex matrix which is human decision making, I may conclude that while the quality of not following the rules of a game are: wrong, that the quantity of this violation can in certain circumstances be: miniscule.

Here 'we' can see another prime example of another way these adult human beings, back in 'the olden days' when this was being written, to use to try to 'justify' the 'wrongness' that they each 'knew' that they were doing.

Oh and by the way, there is absolutely nothing complex about any of your human beings decision makings at all That is; after one discovers, or learns, and understands and 'knows' how the Mind and the brain work, anyway.

Being miniscule, there are cases where other considerations besides moral rightness outweigh them and, for example I may let my young daughter beat me at a card game.

So, where is the 'cheating' here, exactly.

Also, what 'we' can see and notice here is another prime example of what was a very common occurrence 'back then'. The adult human beings would just about never provide an example of what they do wrong, and instead would always 'try to justify' everything they do, and like in the prime example here, which could be referred to as 'virtue signalling', they would instead of giving an example/s of the 'wrong' they do, they turn the 'wrong' around completely so much that they try to come across as doing 'it' for good or right purposes and so they try to come across as though they are good people instead.

Which is, exactly, why these adult beings, back then, never actually changed, for the better, and thus why 'the world', itself, took so, so very long to become the Truly peaceful place that it is 'now', after when this was being written.

I asked this one, 'How, exactly, do you 'violate' your own moral codes?'

But 'we' never end up getting told 'how' and instead get told of one 'miniscule' example, which it then is trying to claim it does 'this' because it is a 'good father'.

Instead of asking for more and more explanation, why don't you provide your own counterexamples to attempt to refute what you disagree with?

you, obviously, have, and want to keep, your own personal views and beliefs on what 'ethics' and 'morality' are, so there is nothing to disagree with here.

Under your own personal definition here there could be as many different versions and answers to, 'Is driving fossil-fuelled cars immoral?', as there are different people. There is no point at all in disagreeing with the actual view or belief that one has, and wants to continue to hold onto.

[Iwannaplato]

This one thinks it can just keep judging and judging others, and never be wrong.

Age is making up a lie about me. I have admitted I was wrong in these forums. It happens in my private life offline. Age makes up lies about people that he cannot demonstrate are true. This is yet another of his endless string of beliefs that he denies having.

it also believes that its own very narrowed and closed views and beliefs are actually what is true and right.

You're projecting.

This one here could not, again, be more wrong here and could not spread more Falsehoods, even if it wanted to and tried to.

What a poorly written sentence, especially the middle.

I will, again, suggest it starts trying to understand others, instead of only seeing things from its own obviously very narrowed and closed views only.

After lying about me never admitting I was wrong, an assertion Age cannot demonstrate is true, which is false, he now projects his own narrow view of me (and most people at the time this is being written). This Age thinks that people, perhaps other people only, are things. Age/Ken refers to people as 'it.'

Age does not hold himself to the standards he holds others.

He continues to spread his narrow and closed views of most of humanity.

[Age]

This one thinks it can just keep judging and judging others, and never be wrong.

Age is making up a lie about me. I have admitted I was wrong in these forums. It happens in my private life offline. Age makes up lies about people that he cannot demonstrate are true. This is yet another of his endless string of beliefs that he denies having.

it also believes that its own very narrowed and closed views and beliefs are actually what is true and right.

You're projecting.

This one here could not, again, be more wrong here and could not spread more Falsehoods, even if it wanted to and tried to.

What a poorly written sentence, especially the middle.

I will, again, suggest it starts trying to understand others, instead of only seeing things from its own obviously very narrowed and closed views only.

After lying about me never admitting I was wrong, an assertion Age cannot demonstrate is true, which is false, he now projects his own narrow view of me (and most people at the time this is being written). This Age thinks that people, perhaps other people only, are things. Age/Ken refers to people as 'it.'

Age does not hold himself to the standards he holds others.

He continues to spread his narrow and closed views of most of humanity.

Even if this one wanted to it could not be more Wrong and could not be spreading more Falsehoods here, which by the way I could prove True.

Also, noted is this one's continued inability to grasp and understand what I have been actually talking about and meaning.

[LuckyR]

So, what, exactly, do you do to 'violate' your own, personal, moral code here?

In other words, how, 'exactly', do you overcome your own 'moralness'?

Or, what is the process involved, exactly, in a human being to override its own sense of 'right'?


Here 'we' can see another prime example of another way these adult human beings, back in 'the olden days' when this was being written, to use to try to 'justify' the 'wrongness' that they each 'knew' that they were doing.

Oh and by the way, there is absolutely nothing complex about any of your human beings decision makings at all That is; after one discovers, or learns, and understands and 'knows' how the Mind and the brain work, anyway.




So, where is the 'cheating' here, exactly.

Also, what 'we' can see and notice here is another prime example of what was a very common occurrence 'back then'. The adult human beings would just about never provide an example of what they do wrong, and instead would always 'try to justify' everything they do, and like in the prime example here, which could be referred to as 'virtue signalling', they would instead of giving an example/s of the 'wrong' they do, they turn the 'wrong' around completely so much that they try to come across as doing 'it' for good or right purposes and so they try to come across as though they are good people instead.

Which is, exactly, why these adult beings, back then, never actually changed, for the better, and thus why 'the world', itself, took so, so very long to become the Truly peaceful place that it is 'now', after when this was being written.

I asked this one, 'How, exactly, do you 'violate' your own moral codes?'

But 'we' never end up getting told 'how' and instead get told of one 'miniscule' example, which it then is trying to claim it does 'this' because it is a 'good father'.

Instead of asking for more and more explanation, why don't you provide your own counterexamples to attempt to refute what you disagree with?

you, obviously, have, and want to keep, your own personal views and beliefs on what 'ethics' and 'morality' are, so there is nothing to disagree with here.

Under your own personal definition here there could be as many different versions and answers to, 'Is driving fossil-fuelled cars immoral?', as there are different people. There is no point at all in disagreeing with the actual view or belief that one has, and wants to continue to hold onto.

So in your lexicon, what are ethics and morality?

[attofishpi]

I haven't read the article, but is there such a thing as a car that is not powered by fossil fuel? - apart from those single seaters that race from Darwin to Adelaide powered by Sunlight.

[Iwannaplato]

Even if this one wanted to it could not be more Wrong and could not be spreading more Falsehoods here, which by the way I could prove True.

Liar. You could not possibly prove

This one thinks it can just keep judging and judging others, and never be wrong.

and it is false.

[Age]

Instead of asking for more and more explanation, why don't you provide your own counterexamples to attempt to refute what you disagree with?

you, obviously, have, and want to keep, your own personal views and beliefs on what 'ethics' and 'morality' are, so there is nothing to disagree with here.

Under your own personal definition here there could be as many different versions and answers to, 'Is driving fossil-fuelled cars immoral?', as there are different people. There is no point at all in disagreeing with the actual view or belief that one has, and wants to continue to hold onto.

So in your lexicon, what are ethics and morality?

To me,

'Morality' is; what is regarded as Right and Wrong and/or good and bad behaviour

And,

'Ethics' is to closely related to 'morality' to be of any distinguishing difference and concern for now.

[Age]

Even if this one wanted to it could not be more Wrong and could not be spreading more Falsehoods here, which by the way I could prove True.

Liar. You could not possibly prove .

This here is a prime example of 'beliefs', themselves.

This one 'believes', 'without a shadow of doubt', what it is saying here.

It, obviously, does not yet even know nor understand what I am actually talking about and referring to, exactly, yet it still believes, without a shadow of doubt, that I could not, possibly, prove True what I am actually talking about, and meaning.

This one thinks it can just keep judging and judging others, and never be wrong.

and it is false.

If you believe and say so.

But, do you even know what I was talking about and referring to, exactly?

If you think or believe you do, then what was it, exactly?

[Iwannaplato]

This here is a prime example of 'beliefs', themselves.

This one 'believes', 'without a shadow of doubt', what it is saying here.

It, obviously, does not yet even know nor understand what I am actually talking about and referring to, exactly, yet it still believes, without a shadow of doubt, that I could not, possibly, prove True what I am actually talking about, and meaning.

But you'll never do it, because you can't. You're a liar.

This one thinks it can just keep judging and judging others, and never be wrong.

and it is false.

If you believe and say so.

No. This is a confused use of language. It's not true if I believe and say so. I recommend you look up conditional sentences.

But, do you even know what I was talking about and referring to, exactly?

I quoted you.

[Age]

This here is a prime example of 'beliefs', themselves.

This one 'believes', 'without a shadow of doubt', what it is saying here.

It, obviously, does not yet even know nor understand what I am actually talking about and referring to, exactly, yet it still believes, without a shadow of doubt, that I could not, possibly, prove True what I am actually talking about, and meaning.

But you'll never do it, because you can't. You're a liar.

you do not yet even know what I am even talking about here at all, let alone exactly.

And, I noticed that you have not changed, in your absence, in regards to your views and beliefs about me.

This one thinks it can just keep judging and judging others, and never be wrong.

and it is false.

If you believe and say so.

No. This is a confused use of language. It's not true if I believe and say so. I recommend you look up conditional sentences.

Okay, if "iwannaplato" believes and says some thing, then it is not true.

I wonder how long you want to keep using your use of language here?

And, are you sure that your use of language here was not a confused use of language, itself?

But, do you even know what I was talking about and referring to, exactly?

I quoted you.

Quoting others in no way means that you know what the other is talking about and referring to at all, let alone exactly.

Also noted is that you, once again, refused to answer the actual clarifying posed, and asked to you.