You are responsible for both your actions and the results of those actions.
And this is unreliable for being undefined. That's the problem with it. What does it mean to be responsible for one's actions? (And why is that the part people always skip over?)
• • •
Certainly not. There are lots of similar thinkers out there. Many atheists, for example. That's kinda the point.
Well, that, in turn, is kind of the point. Try it this way:
Does there need to be? Does SciFo charge by the word?
No, the problem, as such, is that your version is as meaningless as any of those others.
The quoted is a textbook strawman.
Actually, it's not: Consider that you asked, "Without trying to be sarcastic: do you not follow the metaphor?" And when told the point in question, you simply dismiss it as "textbook strawman". You're more willing to accuse than simply clarify the point; it's one thing if I presume you're not in a similar context to sovereign citizen chatter, but there's no guarantee. This is the problem with your circular, self-gratifying pretense of morality and growing up. Like all the other tough-talking prescriptions of morality and growing up, it's an undefined proposition left to the aesthetics of the beholder. Inasmuch as anyone else is supposed to look at the world and see exactly what you see, exactly how you see it, and think exactly how you think, no, that's not going to happen.
You should probably reread the OP then, since the thesis is essentially that God is not the arbiter of morality.
Non sequitur. You are fulfilling the "no morality" part; solipsistic moral relativism is not reliable morality. Like I said, you're kind of making their point for them.
(And, yes, they're just as relativistic and aesthetic and therefore unreliable, but, again, that's kind of the problem.)
You're revealing your own biases here, not mine - about misuse of words and your own talk history. Which is fine, but it's not really useful here.
It's a vague word, Dave, and you're still not being clear.
Naturally, all such things come down to opinions of individuals. That kind of goes without saying.
And that's what it means to grow up. Again, it seems meaningless because, "accepting sole sovereignty over one's actions and the consequences thereof", is subjective nonsense.
Thus:
I'm not sure if you really have an objection to statements in the OP or if you are just offended at the very act of it being posted.
(
¡chortle!)
I'm sorry, but would you
please stop behaving to type? "Offended at the very act of it being posted"? What, is that how things go in your world? To
reiterate↑, your microsermon is the sort of folksy fertilizer the grumpy ol' folks have been shoveling for generations, but even taking the point seriously, the standard is utterly subjective.
Consider that when you
make the point↑, "Growing up isn't about being perfect - that's an impractical goal", it is in fact fallacious, your own straw man. Growing up may not be about being perfect, but that doesn't change the unreliability of internalized moral formulae; the anchors of consistency are external. What makes empiricism reliable is external.
But that fallacy helps illustrate another point:
Translation:
"If only there were some way of ...
communicating with Dave! Some way we could, I dunno ... ask for clarification. Even - dare I hope - some sort of
dialogue. Alas, Dave has surely disappeared off the face of the Earth, and the technology for dialoguing with him is likewise
years in the future. ... :sad face:"
Well, as noted, you were too busy with fallacy.
And when asked directly what your terminology meant,
you refused↑.
And now you
wasted a post↑ complaining. If only some way of communicating with Dave? You chose cynicism and stand off. Was the point of doing so to complain as you did? It's one thing to complain that others aren't trying hard enough to communicate with you, but it rings hollow, Dave, when you are also seen refusing dialogue. (I mean, hey, talk about taking responsibility for your actions.)
Again, could you please stop behaving to type? Think of your point that there are lots of similar thinkers out there; that also means there are lots of similar failures, out there. What makes your iteration any different from what precedes it? You chose sarcasm; no there doesn't need to be any difference, Dave, but as such but don't ever pretend that you're different from any of the other iterations that simply expect everyone else to take responsibility for themselves by falling in line with whatever that wagging grown-up wants.
Consider
Billvon's↑ definition: While you are unable to produce even that sort of attempted clarification, even the typal, basic sketch Billvon offers is undefined.
Think of it this way, Dave, there is a way in which I don't need to be cynical or sarcastic or try for a gotcha; generally speaking, your sort of self-satisfying pitch about taking responsibility and growing up is not the sort of thing one appreciates when it is turned back toward them, so it turns out they always mean something else.
And as you wonder, without sarcasm, if I follow the metaphor, please observe
Clueluss'↑ note on bootstrapping. Like our neighbor, I just don't have any confidence in that kind of talk. And what separates your version from being evil, Dave, is that you're Dave, and we think Dave's better than such blithe, self-satisfying myopia, so he must necessarily mean something better. What remains mysterious is what Dave actually means.
Because, "sovereignty"? Applied in a context of individual sovereignty, the word still has multiple meanings with different implications. In asking if I follow the metaphor, you are asking, in effect, do I not read and perceive precisely as you do, and compared to what dots you think could not be closer together, the odds actually favor the outcome that I do not. Just like we ought not presume all those similar thinkers out there see things just like you do.
Even still, both Billvon and Cluelusshusbund managed to offer what you have not. And, sure, I think Bill's version is just as undefined as yours. And the thing about bootstrapping is that while I agree with Clueuluss in perceiving that definition, and, indeed, would be critical of that outlook, I don't actually know what it is you mean because you are, thus far, unable to clarify beyond some vague expectation about what others should think.
Because there is nothing new about unanchored, self-gratifying prescriptions that other people just need to grow up, and as
other such discussions↗ remind, there is actually a lot to discuss about what is wrong with those expectations. And if that's not what you're after, then we don't really need to chase that rabbit.
But the question of what
you actually mean would still remain unanswered.
Here, to reiterate:
「When he made a mistake, he did not shit himself, or pray to God, but just made believe and called it taking responsibility for himself.」
The part about making believe is what you're not addressing. I mean, you skipped over it the first time, and then went on to complain about communication and clarification and dialogue, but that's what I wanted you to consider. And, yes, I even went on to say, I know, that's not you. And while talk of separating the grown-ups from the children isn't exactly new, its generic reliance on subjective, internalized standards describing what it means to grow up and take responsibility usually means it's actually about something else.
For instance, the common aspect between the tellings, regardless of God—
e.g., youth pastors, motivational speakers, PE teachers, school cops, political candidates, self-assured Boomer dads, department managers—is that the nearest definition of what it means to grow up and take responsibility for oneself is to do and say whatever that person wants.
And if that is not what they mean, well, that's the thing, isn't it? When it comes to explaining what they mean, people are better at telling what they're not: Don't need a diaper, don't need God, don't need mommy and daddy, but when it comes to putting on the grown-up pants, just doing it, taking responsibility ourselves, giving 110%, not making excuses, &c., it's a lot harder for those to explain proactively. What I might describe, for instance, as "docphilling", is a version of bootstrapping that presupposes a circumstantial vacuum while demanding subjective satisfaction, approximately:
「Everything that affects you is your responsibility, so just be a better person until we are satisfied.」
And we get it, Dave; you're Dave, not one of those jokers out there. And it's true, I do wonder why the people who don't mean the same as that one thing never really say it any differently. But that's the thing. You're not them, but you say it the same way, and respond with typal indignance and expectation of what should be self-evident.
Yet, even still, what you
do mean remains unclear.