Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by SetiAlpha6, Feb 12, 2019.
Point taken. You're right, of course.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Apparently you do not see it in yourself.
Wrong, I see it in all of us.
Science does not "disprove" such things. It renders them unlikely - in the extreme, in this case: parthenogenesis in a mammal faces many known obstacles, of a male essentially insuperable ones.
Less moral, you mean.
You get your posted vocabulary and framing from wingnut propaganda feeds. Your "Devil's advocacy" is wingnut framed, as have been the supposed sightings of "hypocrisy".
Science renders many things that are possible to be unlikely to happen, yet they none the less occur. Then we have the additional option of mystical intervention, an option that you've personally championed to explain the expansion of the potential boundaries of natural law.
God is the embodiment correct morality, how could killing be more justified than by adhering to that standard?
Of course it comes from a given spectrum of wingnut ideology, how else do play devils advocate? I could just as easily do the same with some of your wingnut positions.
i think its quite funny to actualize the working model in public discourse in symbology
people tend to comprehend body language a lot better than mathematics and their own confusion with lust & greed.
it would be quite funny to grab a group of people on camera and get them to all stand in groups showing which number voted for which party and how many didn't vote.
while flying a banner saying "self acclaimed leader of the free democratic world".
the morality they sell for others to eat is quite different to the ones the majority live by while talking Sh_t in many countrys if not most
Why would you want to play "Devil's Advocate" and claim to have morality on your side? Are you playing defender of immoral people and claim it is your duty to defend the Devil instead of God as the source of morality?
Folks, we are now revisiting the "Era of Bedlam". A collapse of civilization into a state of complete and utter madness.
immoral and amoral are not quite the same
Do you understand the meaning of the term Devil’s advocate?
A person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination.
No, we’re not witnessing the collapse of civilization because people’s shared morality is rooted in different means of validation. The moral codes adopted by various religions usually had some utilitarian social value, just as the ones adopted by secularists do today. Essentially the same moral standards, with the religious assuming added justification due to their particular philosophical view.
Do you understand the meaning of the word priority?
3: something given or meriting attention before competing alternatives
See, the thing is, you're not really giving much toward sake of argument or thorough examination. As a matter of priorities, it is apparently worth repeating, but not worth putting much effort into. There's always a reason, so to speak, but after a while everybody else who is supposed to lighten up, take a joke, or whatever enabling behavior supremacism requires, just aren't up for cutting the break.
Let us take a look at the record you left:
#282↑: Enter the discussion in response to a fairly obvious point, but offering neither a thorough examination or any other scrap for the sake of argument.
#291↑: Explicitly states white supremacism, giving nothing toward examination or any other aspect for sake of argument.
#298↑: Two sentences bearing no suggestion of any effort whatsoever toward any sort of examination for any sake of argument.
#300↑: Advocacy of killing as merit, which isn't really exposed to any sort of examination benefiting any sake of argument.
#303↑: Functionless assertion of ubiquity telling us more about you than anything else.
#305↑: The Devil's Advocate postures himself as too ignorant to properly attend the stations.
#309↑: Quoted above.
Briefly: You're not really putting much effort into it; your devilish advocacy goes nowhere, and reads more like a lazy recitation. Regarding a related issue—an even dumber reason for going out of one's way to say something stupid—Javier Morillo↱ explained, last year:
If you don't want people to think you're a racist, don't go out of your way to be a jerk. Be a human being. If you know, when writing something, that comparing a black person to a chimp is felt by some as racist, I don't know, don't do it. Find some other way to own the libs.
After a while, it reads like a cheap excuse: There is always someone willing to make this sort of thing a priority. Compared to your history, what do you really expect people to believe? The one who wants to be seen helping white supremacists rattle for genetic testing? Who stands up for white supremacist corruption of law enforcement? And it's not just black and white, either, though, yeah, it's already pretty clear you're not very good at the whole white-supremacism Devil's Advocate thing.
In this episode, really, you haven't done anything to expose or scrutinize the white Jesus discussion. Your low-effort recitation playing not so much Devil's Advocate as thoughtless mockery actually had the effects of distracting from the general discourse and notching up the stupid. Before, it was just a question of needing Jesus to be white because of the Shroud of Turin. Your priority, however, is your own decision.
Our neighbor is really, really bad at religious evangelism, but your timing is awful compared to any pretense of wisdom, and your priority is, well, yours.
Sure I do, mine in this case was not to take sides in this example of piling on the extremist. It’s obvious that SetiAlpha6 is on the life at conception side, and your on the life at delivery side. It would be shooting fish in a barrel mocking either one of you, so rather than piling on one side or the other I chose a different tack.
With my rather consistent anti theistic views in the religion threads, my pro God stance in this one was obvious satire to anyone familiar with my posting history.
Because only white supremacists were calling for Liz Warren to do what she concluded was the right thing to do. I guess her whiteness got the better of her. Better for her to take your advice and remain ignorant of her true origins.
You must be referring to the Michael Brown shooting, that the racist FBI concluded was justified by the cop involved.
I didn’t know it was an audition for the lead role in the Christopher Hasson story or I would’ve upped my game.
Thoughtless mockery is about all the nonsense the OP presented deserved, it certainly didn’t deserve any of your long winded commentary on abortion rights.
Stop trying to pretend that any of the comments, yours or SetiAlpha6's in this thread had any meaningful contribution to discussion of abortion in the US. At the point I entered the thread the wheels were already coming off, and you had already made your obligatory ideological poses, so stop crying and go find another trigger to feel alive.
Not on the level of mammalian male parthenogenesis.
And how could anything be less moral than explicitly betraying that standard?
Less moral, is the correct evaluation.
Warren was not ignorant of her "true origins". Why are you claiming that she was?
"It" is the frame, and not from the "spectrum" of any ideology.
The attempt to mislead by reframing the discussion is not advocacy, but concealment of advocacy.
As you note:
You are concealing, not exposing, the cause you promote. You are protecting it from argument, deflecting examination of it.
Other than in dealing with people like you, nobody thought it was "the right thing to do" - not Warren, not the Cherokee, nobody.
The entire shitshow was a creation of you and yours. There were no other devils involved.
Well, that nearly makes sense: If mockery is your priority, that would make its own point.
Like the time you judged just how traumatized little girls should be allowed to be by sexual abuse? You know, in support of religious people?
It's like your line (#300↑) about getting most of your news from "mainstream and left leaning sites"; that actually doesn't tell us anything despite its apparent intention. You do realize, do you not, the phrasing about your "rather consistent anti theistic views in the religion threads" and getting "most of [your] news from mainstream and left leaning sites", does not explicitly disagree with apparent rightist advocacy of white supremacism, nor even the unfortunate episode about sexual abuse of children. That is, you have done nothing to mitigate the evidence that you are simply a trolling poseur. An example is your white supremacist advocacy regarding Elizabeth Warren:
Right, you sided with white supremacists because they were yelling at someone°.
And, furthermore, your argument that "she concluded" she was doing "the right thing" is clearly contradicted by the point of making the concession in the first place and later apologizing to the nonwhites she offended by making such a white supremacist concession.
You don't seem to understand the "left leaning sites". There are a few apparent poseurs around here who give themselves away by their fluency in conservative political dialect and lack of understanding about the liberalism, progressivism, or leftism they pretend; it's not exactly a rare or infrequent routine°°.
And of that occasion I'm referring to your desperate, self-contradicting behavior in support of white supremacism. Institutional outcomes speak nothing of your own behavior.
Your lack of sincerity is the other reason people don't believe your excuses. Think of it this way: You're not playing Devil's Advocate; you're playing Satan.
Making this all about you just makes the point.
Here we come back to your priority: personal judgment and a rush to white supremacism.
Meanwhile, people were addressing a novel and unsupported claim offered in support of a debunked claim that, sure, has ethnosupremacist elements woven into it, but more has to do with a pretense of Christianist evangelism reading more like ill-considered antireligious provocateurism. Dedicated laborious sloth is, in itself, curious behavior, as there are many paths arriving at the appearance.
Still, though, we have a quasihistorical assertion on the table, and one of the questions that remains is whence it comes, that we might examine the source support. Whether or not we ever get that out of an advocacy that reads more like lazy, antireligious provocateurism is its own question, and the advocate will as he does; your digression into lazy white supremacism is your own question, your own priority.
There is always someone to bring the supremacism, and they always think they have a reason, and few, if any, can actually bear the burden. In the end, it looks more like the point is to bring the supremacism, which means something about priorities goes here.
In the applicable adaptation of what Morillo advised in re Housley's chimp line: If you do not wish to be seen as supremacist, then bring something better. If you know your mockery will be perceived as hostile, be prepared to defend your willful provocation.
And toward that last, if all you bring is a post-hoc pretense of mockery, the shape and structure of your priority stands out all the more.
° Follow the bouncing ball; it's actually a can of corn, an easy catch, once one recognizes the elements. A famous person accidentally came out of the closet a few years back. A politician, actually. Some people were committing vile crimes against homosexuals, and prosecutors didn't want to charge the offenders; the politician, when asked, supported that reluctance because if homosexuality wasn't punished, good men will become gay; a gay rights advocate correctly pointed out the obvious, that men who say this apparently feel exposure to that outcome. We might, for instance consider homophobic slogans like, "Exit only", because those men are either trying to inform others or convince themselves, and what about a lack of homophobic torture and murder would even imply those men are going to magically transform into queers, and the answer, of course, is nothing, because they are either purely heterosexual or not. The easy catch: The politician outed himself as bisexual at least because that is the only way the "Exit only" men have exposure to somehow turning gay. If they're purely heterosexual men without any such fluidity, as they pretend, there is no danger they will see a man who takes it up the ass walking around in open daylight without being harassed and suddenly want their own donuts punched; when that happens, the heterosexual was already queer to begin with. In our moment, the point considers that as much as fear of turning gay was the politician's priority in answering the question put to him, so also does your easy sympathy and deference to white supremacists describe the priority of your response to their Warren question. Additionally, we might as well reiterate your apparent ignorance of the story in its current form, and wonder what, other than echoing white supremacists, you think you've accomplished.
°° It's an obscure point to people who aren't inclined leftward, but in Reasons To Be Cheerful [Simon & Schuster, 2002], Mark Steel discussed the realization that one could be a Communist without supporting the Soviet Union. Age might come into it, as well; the point makes much more sense if one remembers the Seventies and Eighties. Similarly, in the U.S., many leftists developed in a rightist atmosphere, their socialism, communism, or anarchism postured as a reaction against and response unto conservative politics, mythopoeia, and gossip. These read and sound differently compared to longer partisans steeped in sympathetic literature. But there is also a counterinsurgency, as such, including some manner of provocateurism both organized and independent, and these read and sound differently from the others. And it's true, we are familiar with them, here at Sciforums and in our lives at large. For instance, after the election, an activist—likely individual and not part of an organized campaign—in my sphere of association tried to convince people he was some sort of progressive or leftist in order to argue that what Democrats should do is appease conservatives. And while such arguments are not utterly impossible, questions of validity and reliability weren't even on the map; whenever that associate tries his poseur routine, he is simply incapable of showing any comprehension of leftism, progressivism, or even liberalism, while his fluency is as conservative as his presuppositions. And if you ask him obvious questions, he responds with right-wing criticism. There is a reason nobody believes his poseur routine.
bullshit. jesus was an ancient hebrew or or other semitic speaking people. we may not know exactly what he looked like we can definitely say he was not a blond hair blue eyed nordic looking person.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to bleed the freak.
Previously, I asserted↑:
• The history of suppression of knowledge regarding abortion and other reproductive health considerations is rather quite easily characterized in the U.S., for instance, by the number of legislative amendments and executive gag orders constraining abortion, contraception, and related information.
You chose to focus on a different point↑, but, still, a Republican is president so the news is inevitable:
The Trump administration on Friday set up new obstacles for women seeking abortions, barring taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from making abortion referrals. The new policy is certain to be challenged in court.
The final rule released Friday by the Health and Human Services Department also would prohibit federally funded family planning clinics from being housed in the same locations as abortion providers, and require stricter financial separation.
Clinic staff would still be permitted to discuss abortion with clients, along with other options. However, that would no longer be required.
The move, decried by women's groups and praised by religious conservatives, is the latest in a series of Trump administration efforts to remake government policy on reproductive health.
(Alonso-Zaldivar and Crary↱)
So much for full disclosure and knowledge.
It took what, like, three days for reality to remind?
Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo and David Crary. "Trump sets up abortion obstacles, barring clinic referrals". Associated Press. 22 February 2019. APNews.com. 22 February 2019. http://bit.ly/2TZCYdf
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'll bet that's peer-reviewed...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I took a quick peek (very quick peek)
It does appear to be stocked to overflowing with information but missing a plain simple preview
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There’s always a first time for everything, such as virgin births, walking on water, turning water into wine. It only had to happen once to make the story true.
It all depends on the God you follow.
Warren’s only evidence of her origins prior to her DNA test were her unverified family stories. At least now she has some independent evidence that lends some support to those stories.
SetiAlpha6 made a reference to the fatherhood of Jesus, and I offered an explanation that I assumed he was alluding to. Adding that Jesus was most likely Caucasian was as reasonable as assuming a virgin birth, miracles and a resurrection.
I’m not concealing anything, the nonsense I posted is as much open for examination as any of the other mystical and untestable aspects presented in this thread.
“I am not a person of color,” Warren responded. “I am not a citizen of a tribe. Tribal citizenship is very different from ancestry. Tribes — and only tribes — determine tribal citizenship, and I respect that difference.”
Speaking about why she chose to take the test, which drew criticism from Native Americans, Warren said she was acting in the interest of transparency. “A lot of racial slurs and a lot of ugly stuff, and my decision was I’m just going to put it all out there. All my hiring records. Including the DNA test. It’s out there. It’s online. Anybody can look at it,” she said.
Tribal leaders and Native people say the senator is an ally — and they support her look at her ancestry. But hardly anyone asked them.
You mean me and Liz Warren.
You mean how I judged how little girls, religious or otherwise, aren't required to be traumatized when their clothes are touched as they sleep.
By your imbecilic logic, if a white supremacist suggests that you get a flu shot, then advocating flu shots is an act of white supremacism.
I have family stories that alluded to Native American ancestry, but our DNA tests did not indicate any. My wife on the other hand had no family recollections of Asian or native ancestry, but her test happened to put her in the range of Warren’s native results. Lots of people have similar assumption regarding their ancestry, and you don’t validate them by ignoring the potential evidence that's available these days.
Warren dug a hole for herself by publicly identifying as Native American back in the eighties. Once the issue was exposed in her 2012 Senate campaign, it would not go away by simply ignoring it. Her best option in my opinion, and apparently her’s too, was to try to be as factual about the issue as practical, take responsibility for any errors, and move on.
Liberalism, progressivism, or leftism aren’t monolithic movements, like any movements there is a spectrum of thought. If you expect them to be in lockstep with your brand, that’s just another notch in your imbecile belt.
My argument in that case had nothing to do with race, it was an acknowledgment of the finding by the FBI civil rights investigation, that under the circumstances the officer was in fear of his life from the charging suspect. If it had been a black cop, I guess you’d brand him a white supremacist as well. You must see them everywhere. Better dead than perceived white bread.
And you’re playing a fool for this whole line of critique. Go color some more pictures and excite yourself.
There is not a first time for the sufficiently unlikely. The universe is not old enough.
It holds for any deity you can name without an anthropological netsearch - meaning any deity you were referring to.
Besides: The Abrahamic one is the only one referred to as "God" (singular, capital G) in English, without further qualification.
Killing people in the name of that God is less moral than other killing.
That was solid information - from multiple sources, consistent with each other and the physical facts, including photographs and residences and independent historical records.
Absolutely true, as your posted evidence verifies by omission of the slightest counterexample. The entire DNA schtick was and is your shitshow, and nobody else's idea.
You were, and are, concealing the racially bigoted and politically partisan wingnut reframing you have attempted to promulgate on this forum.
Warren did not do that. That line of bs is your contribution to the issue.
I mean you and rest of your bullshitters. Warren had nothing to do with it. Nobody made you do it. You are entirely responsible.
I would agree since I believe in loving faithfulness anyways.
Separate names with a comma.