- Members allowed to view this conversation
- Everyone
- ‹ Previous First
-
unread70-72 of 72 posts
- Last Next ›
Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post
No, your basis for morality is flawed to the point that you have only the illusion of morality. You claim that you "figure things out yourself" yet earlier you proudly exclaimed that you did research and based your ideas upon the works and writings of others. So which is it? I've seen nothing but contradictions and illogical proclamations from you this entire time. It seems you're incapable of holding your side of an argument. Log out, nigga. You're cooked.
Yeah figuring things out means looking at what other people have done and seeing what they might have gotten wrong by creating something else that works better.
It would be really weird if an physicist spent their entire life alone in a room pondering the universe and managed to achieve the same precise models as we have today from centuries of people contributing to the field.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
Like there's no way you're saying anything meaningful about morality to say that one specific framework is suspicious on the grounds that it was made by an animal.
Perhaps if you were to criticize a broader or more established system of morality greater discussion could be had.
Why should a system of morality devised by an animal be taken into acceptance? Indeed, one of the distinctions between man and beast is morality. Hence, animals cannot, by virtue of definition, formulate morality. Therefore, if you are an animal, anything you put forth which you call morality is not, in fact, morality. This seems rather easy to grasp upon cursory examination of this conversation.
- ‹ Previous First
-
unread70-72 of 72 posts
- Last Next ›
Copyright ยฉ MMXXV Esoteric Chat. Some rights reserved. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. ยง 230: All posts on this site are the sole responsibility of their posters.
4,758 posts - 1,411 conversations - 0 members online