Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Immanuel Can]

Either morality is a response to an objective reality,

or

Morality is a construct (i.e. a personally or socially-favoured delusion).

All I can tell you,

You tail off into a rant about what you suppose my beliefs to be, but it's not relevant to the question. You can see the logical contradiction: to the extent something is "constructed," it cannot be "universal."

Now, in the formula that I have quoted you reveal how your mind works mathematically. Obviously in Aristotelian manner: eliminating the excluded middle, resorting to an absolutist’s declaration.

Fine. Show why a contradiction is not entailed. Describe morality in non-contradictory terms, if you can, from a secular stance.

If I were to comment I would say, I do say, that man realizes (receives, discovers, decides on) those Principles that are part-and-parcel of our conscience.

Then are the deliverances of the conscience merely subjective or derived from objective truth? They cannot be both. So you haven't solved the riddle at all...at least, not yet.

Your view is, apparently, incoherent. But perhaps you can explain. Fewer words and more truth will serve us better here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You tail off into a rant about what you suppose my beliefs to be, but it's not relevant to the question.

Please correct me in the areas that you perceive I get it wrong. You will not, of course, because my descriptions are accurate.

The question, as you put it, revolves around the fact that we — we of the Occident especially (because our struggle is so evidently in these areas) — is that we have developed a conscience. At least as far as I am concerned, that is the topic.

From your limited perspective, and from Hebraic-Christian fanaticism (a whole topic unto itself), you attempt to build an apologetic argument. It is a constructed edifice that you take to be “real”. And you cannot see nor understand what this portends! You work within constructions, Immanuel. From my perspective as observer, your apologetics fail. And I point out at least some part of ‘why’. It is not just you or solely you however.

“The question” is far larger, it seems to me, than you can allow. And the failure — your abject failure — to influence your audience is tied up with the failure of the picture you work with (that has you in its grip).

The issue for me is highly relevant insofar as it plays out in the cultural wars on-going, and far less as the mathematical propositions that you argue abstractly.

[Immanuel Can]

You tail off into a rant about what you suppose my beliefs to be, but it's not relevant to the question.

Please correct me in the areas that you perceive I get it wrong.

I just did. You were not relevant to the topic, so you got that wrong. And you were wrong about a whole bunch of other stuff, too, but I can't be bothered with irrelevancies.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel, dearest, it is known to one and all that you strategically skirt those topics that pertain to critical posture vis-a-vis your positions.

[Alexiev]

You don't know what the word means. It's from the Latin, and means "offspring." And it's human "offspring." So calling it a "fetus" is admitting it's the "offspring" of a human being...which is a baby.

The "offspring of a human being" is only a "baby" during a particular portion of its life (as I've tried to explain, but you are too dense to understand).

Of what is it the "offspring"? What kind of being does it "spring off"?

The "offspring of a human being" is sometimes a child, or a teenager, or an adult, or (in your case) an age-addled geriatric. Or a fetus.

And every last one of them is a human being in the full moral sense. Even if you think a fetus is only a "pre-human," then it's still most definitely a human being you're extinguishing if you abort him/her. That same life you're ripping out of existence is that which most certainly would have become baby, teenager, adult and geriatric...everything that you, yourself have become. Except you killed the child.

However if you've done it, or supported it, then you'll never admit to yourself what you've done. There's no win in it for you if you do; because then you'd be a murderer, but being secular, without means of repentance and forgiveness. And that's not a win for anybody. So perpetuating the lie that you haven't killed a human being is the only thing that can appear to you to be in your interest. I get that. And I expect you to persist, even though you know you're wrong.

None of this justifies calling a fetus a teenager, an adult, a geriatric, or (of course) a baby. It is merely a distraction, and an obnoxious one at that.

[MikeNovack]

.........but being secular, without means of repentance and forgiveness.

IC, be CLEAR (to yourself) what you are saying. I believe you are confusing wto very different things,

a) The VALIDITY of the moral codes of the believers in some other god (or gods) or of the unbelievers. The EFFECTIVENESS of forgiveness they receive after erring, feeling guilty, repenting, resolving to change their ways, and asking for forgiveness.

b) That however odd this seems to you, the believers in some other god (or gods) or the unbelievers do believe they know a moral code, do know when they have dome wrong by it, do feel guilt and shame, can repent, can resolve to change their behavior, and if they believe that is what their deity does, ask for forgiveness. The secular person might also ask for forgiveness (though not from some god).

You appear to be denying "b", but WHY? On what basis? "b" has nothing to do with what you believe to be true or even with what IS true (in some absolute sense. "b" is just about the beliefs of that other person and how they choose to act based on those beliefs.

How can you argue the secular person does not have moral beliefs (however false those moral rules might be, since they don't come from GOD). That the secular person cannot know when he or she has failed to act in accordance with them, Cannot feel regret and guilt for having done so. Cannot seek to change, to not do so again, to make reparations, to repent, to seek forgiveness.

[Immanuel Can]

The "offspring of a human being" is only a "baby" during a particular portion of its life (as I've tried to explain, but you are too dense to understand).

Of what is it the "offspring"? What kind of being does it "spring off"?

The "offspring of a human being" is sometimes a child, or a teenager, or an adult, or (in your case) an age-addled geriatric. Or a fetus.

And every last one of them is a human being in the full moral sense. Even if you think a fetus is only a "pre-human," then it's still most definitely a human being you're extinguishing if you abort him/her. That same life you're ripping out of existence is that which most certainly would have become baby, teenager, adult and geriatric...everything that you, yourself have become. Except you killed the child.

However if you've done it, or supported it, then you'll never admit to yourself what you've done. There's no win in it for you if you do; because then you'd be a murderer, but being secular, without means of repentance and forgiveness. And that's not a win for anybody. So perpetuating the lie that you haven't killed a human being is the only thing that can appear to you to be in your interest. I get that. And I expect you to persist, even though you know you're wrong.

None of this justifies calling a fetus a teenager, an adult, a geriatric, or (of course) a baby.

Your reductio is noted, and not warranted. All these are phases of exactly the same entity.

It IS a baby...the offspring of a human being, and just as much one as you are. And you know it.

If you say otherwise, explain at exactly what time it turns into a baby. And give your evidence that you're right. For instance, why would it be a "baby" when outside the womb, but not that ten seconds earlier, when one toe remained inside the mother? Explain the difference.

[Immanuel Can]

.........but being secular, without means of repentance and forgiveness.

IC, be CLEAR (to yourself) what you are saying. I believe you are confusing wto very different things,

a) The VALIDITY of the moral codes of the believers in some other god (or gods) or of the unbelievers. The EFFECTIVENESS of forgiveness they receive after erring, feeling guilty, repenting, resolving to change their ways, and asking for forgiveness.

I'm not confused. I know that one can have feelings that are not justified by the facts, or facts that are not accompanied by the appropriate feelings. Moreover, one can obtain a feeling of forgiveness from another person one has wronged. But what one cannot do, by way of secularism, is explain why what you did to him/her was WRONG in the first place.

It's not merely because he/she didn't like it, obviously. It's not merely because you felt guilty, because one can feel illegitimate and unwarranted feelings, and people do that all the time. So why was -- say, theft -- WRONG?

Let's hear what secularism has to instruct us about that.

The secular person might also ask for forgiveness (though not from some god).

Well, they could ask it from their victim, of course. But again, why is what they did to their victim "wrong"? What's the basis?

How can you argue the secular person does not have moral beliefs

I have never argued this. Note my wording: a secular person may have moral beliefs. However, a secular person cannot have any moral beliefs that are warranted by secularism. In other words, he can make up any number of beliefs for which he has no good reasons --including his belief that he has wronged somebody and can repent -- he cannot, however, explain to himself why what he did was actually and objectively wrong, or how he can be ultimately forgiven for sins completed in the past.

That the secular person cannot know when he or she has failed to act in accordance with them, Cannot feel regret and guilt for having done so. Cannot seek to change, to not do so again, to make reparations, to repent, to seek forgiveness.

Like I say: the secular person can, of course, delude himself in all these ways. And he can be thoroughly convinced of his delusions. What he can't do is explain why he, as a secular person, is obligated to do any of these things, or why, if he fails to do any of them, he has thereby become a person worse than somebody who does none of them.

In short, secularism has no moral information to offer him. He's on his own to make stuff up that secularism itself, rationally held, would instruct him to believe is simply false and delusory.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, dearest, it is known to one and all that you strategically skirt those topics that pertain to critical posture vis-a-vis your positions.

No. I'm just very bored with you and your irrelevancies. I spend my time on people who can think coherently.

[Alexiev]

[
It IS a baby...the offspring of a human being, and just as much one as you are. And you know it.

If you say otherwise, explain at exactly what time it turns into a baby. And give your evidence that you're right. For instance, why would it be a "baby" when outside the womb, but not that ten seconds earlier, when one toe remained inside the mother? Explain the difference.

I assure you I am not a baby, nor have I been for some decades. Most people would say a fetus becomes a baby at birth, though if you wanted to argue at viability you would be slightly less idiotic than you are now. The difference is semantic. A "tween" becomes a "teenager" on his or her thirteenth birthday, although the physical development is continuous rather than abrupt.

This is all so obvious that your lack of comprehension is bizarre and idiotic.

[Immanuel Can]

It IS a baby...the offspring of a human being, and just as much one as you are. And you know it.

If you say otherwise, explain at exactly what time it turns into a baby. And give your evidence that you're right. For instance, why would it be a "baby" when outside the womb, but not that ten seconds earlier, when one toe remained inside the mother? Explain the difference.

Most people would say a fetus becomes a baby at birth,

No, most people do not say that. There is, in fact, no consensus at all on that question. And for a very good reason: nobody knows.

But this we do know: a baby is a baby at birth. How much before that, nobody can say with absolute certainty. What you call a "fetus" has its own heartbeat, circulatory system, brain waves, fingerprints, emotions and physiology long before your arbitrary butchering point. In fact, it has absolutely everything what you call a "baby" has.

There's no meaningful difference between a baby ten seconds before birth or ten seconds after. So it ain't birth that's the line. It cannot be. It must be earlier, and you don't know when it is. So you're happy to kill a child you know is a child; and inventing excuses that cannot be rationally defended does not make it any better.

[Alexiev]

[
Most people would say a fetus becomes a baby at
No, most people do not say that. There is, in fact, no consensus at all on that question. And for a very good reason: nobody knows.

But this we do know: a baby is a baby at birth. How much before that, nobody can say with absolute certainty. What you call a "fetus" has its own heartbeat, circulatory system, brain waves, fingerprints, emotions and physiology long before your arbitrary butchering point. In fact, it has absolutely everything what you call a "baby" has.

There's no meaningful difference between a baby ten seconds before birth or ten seconds after. So it ain't birth that's the line. It cannot be. It must be earlier, and you don't know when it is. So you're happy to kill a child you know is a child; and inventing excuses that cannot be rationally defended does not make it any better.

There's no meaningful distinction between a 12 and 364 day-year-old and a13 year old either. But one is a teenager, and one is not. The distinction (as anyone but an idiot can understand) is linguistic, not biological.

[phyllo]

Most people would say a fetus becomes a baby at birth,

No, most people do not say that. There is, in fact, no consensus at all on that question. And for a very good reason: nobody knows.

If "nobody knows" then stop throwing accusations of murder at people.

[MikeNovack]

I have never argued this. Note my wording: a secular person may have moral beliefs. However, a secular person cannot have any moral beliefs that are warranted by secularism. In other words, he can make up any number of beliefs for which he has no good reasons --including his belief that he has wronged somebody and can repent -- he cannot, however, explain to himself why what he did was actually and objectively wrong, or how he can be ultimately forgiven for sins completed in the past.

Look in the bloody mirror. Why do you think you are in any different situation. From the point of view of the secularist, your morality is just based on irrational superstition.

Look at Hillel's response when challenged to expound the whole law while standing on on foot. Now Hillel presumably believed in God but that did not figure in his response. He said "do not do to another what you would not want done to yourself" (and the rest is commentary). He expressed that as a truth, not saying "because God so ordered". What would you call those basing morality on "the sayings of sages" (who are of course not gods)

Note however that you have totally ignored responding to "those who believe in a different deity than you do". Yes, from your point of view, a false god. But from the point of view of those of us not believing in either, little to choose between you.

[Immanuel Can]

[
Most people would say a fetus becomes a baby at
No, most people do not say that. There is, in fact, no consensus at all on that question. And for a very good reason: nobody knows.

But this we do know: a baby is a baby at birth. How much before that, nobody can say with absolute certainty. What you call a "fetus" has its own heartbeat, circulatory system, brain waves, fingerprints, emotions and physiology long before your arbitrary butchering point. In fact, it has absolutely everything what you call a "baby" has.

There's no meaningful difference between a baby ten seconds before birth or ten seconds after. So it ain't birth that's the line. It cannot be. It must be earlier, and you don't know when it is. So you're happy to kill a child you know is a child; and inventing excuses that cannot be rationally defended does not make it any better.

There's no meaningful distinction between a 12 and 364 day-year-old and a13 year old either.

Right. In regard to their status as human beings, it's the same.

And a human "offspring" (fetus) is a baby. It's a nascent human being. It's a soul. It's a creature that belongs to God.

Secularists cannot see it that way. And that's the reason they think they can kill a human being for their own convenience.