Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:55 pmLOVE

scoreless tennis players usually do not jump over the net...

-Imp

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:10 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:06 pm It has its uses. I was just playin' to see where it would lead.

Always to the same place - into the abyss.

Wheeee!!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm So can do no harm if you choose to do no harm to the guy rapin' your child in front of you.

Exactly! You are using the "no harm" principle against itself. That's self-justification.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm And, btw, why you are lyin' to Gary? And isn't a lie a kind of harm?

It may be harm. If it was a lie, but the metaphor (and the context of the conversation) went over your head.

You are using the "no harm" principle against itself. That's self-justification

No, that's bullshit.Your principle (remember the good old days [yesterday] when you didn't have principles?) is manure.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:28 pm No, that's bullshit.Your principle (remember the good old days [yesterday] when you didn't have principles?) is manure.

Harry,

I don't have principles. DO NO HARM is what I DO.

Principles are lip service. They are a posteriori narratives. Principles are just LANGUAGE. Sound bites. Slogans. Virtue signalling.

The Liar's paradox is higher grade stuff. It's certainly triggering your cognitive dissonance bullshit-o-meter.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:43 am One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Well, those are some pretty fucking ambiguous instructions!

Do I love myself and my neighbour more or less than I love my God?

If I love my God more than I love myself and my neighbour, then surely I can kill my neighbour for the love of God?
It doesn't matter if I go to hell for killing my neighbour - If I really love God "with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (which is way more than I love myself) surely I would be capable and willing to endure Eternal Damnation in Hell for him?

(Language is broken, moron!)

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:53 am (Language is broken, moron!)

The question was which is the highest principle. It wasn't whether or not you would obey it, or violate it in the very next message.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:10 am The question was which is the highest principle. It wasn't whether or not you would obey it, or violate it in the very next message.

Unlike your half-sentence picking tendencies, I can actually join the dots across multiple threads to point out your blatant double standard.

If "no harm" is vague, two principles that contradict each other is worse.

You can't even determine if you are violating or obeying them.

Skepdick wrote:I don't have principles. DO NO HARM is what I DO.

Skepdick wrote:I am pretty sure the highest principle is "no harm". Morality.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:23 am You can't even determine if you are violating or obeying them.

You'd be surprised.

Or you will be.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:23 am

Skepdick wrote:I don't have principles. DO NO HARM is what I DO.

Skepdick wrote:I am pretty sure the highest principle is "no harm". Morality.

A round of applause for Harry is required here!

In his narrow-minded focus of winning the battle, he gives up the war.

By contradicting me saying "I don't have principles" he scores an own goal.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:08 am Skep mocks cuz he's unprincipled.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm No, just illustratin' a lack of principle.

So why are you lying about my lack of principles, Harry?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:26 am You'd be surprised.

Or you will be.

Where is the "surprise" exactly? Your options are laid out for you: Heaven or Hell.

So, the question begged (and the one you dodged) is: Do you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, enough to endure an Eternity in Hell for him?

If you have such love and conviction, it shouldn't matter whether you are violating the 2nd, 3rd, 4th. or Nth principle because the highest principle is your ultimate insurance policy!

Ultimate Love can conquer all! Even an eternity in Hell.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:29 am So, the question begged (and the one you dodged) is: Do you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, enough to endure an Eternity in Hell for him?

I didn't dodge it...rather, I dismissed it for it's sheer absurdity. Sometimes something's just so "off" it's not worth a comment, and sometimes one should leave a comment alone just because pursuing it would expose the asker's mistake and cause public embarrassment. There's no need for that.

But to the point, the second commandment is an extension of the first, not in conflict with it. Nor can one put the two in conflict, rationally speaking. For to fulfill the first commandment to one's neighbour is to fulfill the second as well.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:19 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:23 am

Skepdick wrote:I don't have principles. DO NO HARM is what I DO.

Skepdick wrote:I am pretty sure the highest principle is "no harm". Morality.

A round of applause for Harry is required here!

In his narrow-minded focus of winning the battle, he gives up the war.

By contradicting me saying "I don't have principles" he scores an own goal.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:08 am Skep mocks cuz he's unprincipled.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm No, just illustratin' a lack of principle.

So why are you lying about my lack of principles, Harry?

You sayin' you have no principles then defendin' a principle is just evidence that you have no principles.

No lies told: just you revealed.

By the way: three fingers is overkill. One suffices...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:08 pm I didn't dodge it...rather, I dismissed it for it's sheer absurdity.

So you didn't dodge it, rather - you dodged it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:08 pm Sometimes something's just so "off" it's not worth a comment, and sometimes one should leave a comment alone just because pursuing it would expose the asker's mistake and cause public embarrassment. There's no need for that.

Well, this is a new tactic for you. Cowering behind faux courtesy.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:08 pm But to the point, the second commandment is an extension of the first, not in conflict with it.

The second commandment relativizes the first. It establishes a dualistic notion of "love".

You love your neighbour, and you love your God. But you love your God more.

That's equivocation. And if love is a relativistic concept your entire house of cards comes crashing down.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:08 pm Nor can one put the two in conflict, rationally speaking. For to fulfill the first commandment to one's neighbour is to fulfill the second as well.

Yeah... that's nonsense. Fulfilling the 2nd commandment is insufficient towards fulfilling the first - your God mandates that you love him more than you love your neighbour.

Maybe you give 51% of your love to God 51% and 49% to your neighbour, who knows? But as soon as you find yourself in any situation where you have to choose between the two your neighbour is going to come off second best.