Total Posts:481|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

DDO Hall of Shame

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 2:20:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What have been some of the most egregious violations of reason and logic you have come across on DDO? Feel free to post any of the fallacious arguments here and give a brief explanation of the context that the argument took place in.

Casual slips in reasoning shouldn't really count. The error must be grand enough in scale so as to truly make it a spectacle of unreason.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 2:27:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
*1. Christianity is a standard of good conduct. [4]*
*2. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are branches of Christianity. [5][6]*
*3. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are standards of good conduct. (Substitution,1,2)*
4. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are Pro-Life. [#9][#10]
5. Pro-Life means being in opposition to abortion [#11].
6. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are in opposition to abortion. (4,5)
7. Abortion is not in accord with Catholicism and Southern Baptism. (6)
8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. *(Substitution,3,7)*
9. Abortion is morally wrong. (8, definition of "morality")

—mongeese.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 2:38:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Most would assert that the law of non-contradiction is true, that "Contradictions cannot exist in reality", but when we consider that if there were no contradictions in reality, then we would not be able to move at all, given that we must pass through an infinity of points to move at all and that infinities cannot be traversed, we can conclude that the law of noncontradiction is arbitrary.

One could also assert that there is no ultimate reality, or that if one were to percieve a contradition and believe that perception is reality, then that person would disagree with you. You may find him/her wrong based on your circular belief in non-contradiction, but their opinion is just as valid as yours.


-WJMelements
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 3:19:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Vi_Veri, was that post in response to something about omnipotence paradoxes? That's a pretty wild shot in the dark but I just seem to remember his saying something along those lines in such a thread.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 3:35:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
==========================
Contention 2: The Nature of Laws and Morality
==========================

"If homosexuality is viewed as wrong by not only the majority of the US population, but also the entire world's population, one may rightly wonder, what is the nature of law? Are laws designed to uphold what is right or what is wrong? For instance, are illicit drugs illegal because of some other reason other than they are thought to be wrong? How about murder, incest, polygamy or pedophiliac behavior – are these illegal for some other reason other than they are thought to be wrong?

Of course, one may rightly suggest that some things are wrong because they infringe on the rights of others. But wait a minute, what are these so called rights and where do they originate? Are rights a transcendental concept or are they also another human convention? If rights are an idea formed by humans for the sake of humans, it stands to reason that humans are the ones who define rights. If the majority of people agree that homosexual behavior is not a right, on what grounds does my opponent disagree?

If my opponent cannot show that homosexual "marriage" (I say this only for clarities sake) is a right, then he cannot show that it is either immoral or unlawful to regulate against it. Moreover, if he cannot show that it is lawful, moral or a right, he has no grounds to argue that it should be legal."

-InquireTruth
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 3:44:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
2. It is unacceptable to request someone else to kill you.

Consider for a moment Sue Rodriguez, who was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 1991 and was killed via assisted suicide in 1994. (http://www.cbc.ca......). While her plea for the legalization of assisted suicide Canada was debated in the courts, no one considered how completely irresponsible her request truly was. After the court ruled against her she said, "If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" She insists that she owns her life but refuses to own her death. If human life has value and belongs to the individual and not to others--as this society overwhelmingly maintains--then by logical extension we own our own deaths. But to place the burden of killing another human on someone else to meet your own needs is the height of hypocrisy. If Sue Rodriguez wanted to die, then she should have accepted the burden herself instead of insisting society's responsibility to do it for her.

-KRFournier
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 3:49:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
>Whites have continually proved to be smarter and more intelligent than blacks, as evidenced by Europeans domination of Africans. If given the choice of a white European or a black African to lead your country, it would be wise to be racist and choose the white European.

-Nags
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 3:59:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 3:49:05 PM, Freeman wrote:
>Whites have continually proved to be smarter and more intelligent than blacks, as evidenced by Europeans domination of Africans. If given the choice of a white European or a black African to lead your country, it would be wise to be racist and choose the white European.

-Nags

I remember him debating like that on a topic, I seem to remember he wasn't saying that some people are better because of of phys. differences, but rather that you'd just be 'statistically' more likely to get a better educated person.

I think that he's right that education level is 'correlated' with whites more than black's, as is success in running countries, and if race was the only category to be decided on he's right that you'd be statistically most likely to get a good pick if you decided as such,

BUT not only is it not the only category, it's one that is not important to consider at all, As if you vote for smart people with experience of good governance, and people who understand issues, you need not consider candidates race as being of any importance as you've already accounted for the factors which go into the correlations which were noted.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:01:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
commoncents

And your looking at spending about 50 dollars for a batch of cookies, not including the time it will take you to drive to the store/ labor.

When it is all said and done, you spend around 100 dollars.(if your an amateur baker.)

This recipe looks like a fail.
Sorry.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:12:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I will now list what is wrong about evolution.

1) This is my main reason and it is a very good reason to not believe and place faith into evolution. According to evolution we as a race have evolved over 10's of millions of years from a single celled orginism. If this is true, how can we trust our eyes, nose, ears, touch and taste? For if we have evolved over many millionms of years how are we 100% sure that you are in the part at 4:25 on a hot summers day? When really you are in a small room being told to stand up against the wall, to be shot? How can anyone prove I am not true, if they believe in evolution.

Better solution: God created me, and since God is the creator of the universe I can fully trust 100% in all of my five great and wonderful gifts given by God. To see what I am see is real and legit, I am witnessing and knowing that all my five senors are living reality, and truth.

2) Fossils do not prove evolution in the slightest, as said by Kend Hovind. You do not know that any fossil had any offspring, and since science is factual and theories and made up of facts, evolution stuggles on this one alot. It is not a fact that every creature gives birth, but it is a fact that creatures give birth. It is also not a fact that a certian gound of creatures had any offspring. So it is pure asumption to say that this creature evolved into this other creature. It is a guessing game, it is far more realistic (relating to the previous question) that all creatures have a common designer (God) rather than common ancestors.

Better solution: There was a world wide flood, causing all living thing which did not enter the ark to drown. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights but the earth was not fully covered by water in till 6 months pasted. Under the crust of the earth there was a layer of water which seeped through the groud, which took around 6 months to submerge the earth utterly. Men would have continued to find higher ground in till there was no higher ground to live upon, same goes for the creatures. This is why scientists fine fossils of creature thousands of feet up, on a mountian. The flood also explains the reason why scientists find sea fossils on mountain tops. Since, of course, the water from the flood covered even the highest mountain.

3) No missing links: It is either one creature or another, there is never a creature where a group of scientists will say, "It is this creature, and it is also this creature!" The missing link would need to consist of a creature which has the skeleton of one creature and of another, otherwise the creature does not change, but remains like another other creature of it's kind (kind, by which I mean the horse, bear, and human kind, for examples).

Better solution: God said, "Ever creature will only bring forth it's own kind." I have never seen anything other than that. And I am sure you have not either. You say, "It takes millions of year." In that case there are no missing links. For if I can see a missing link dead, I should see a missing link alive. DNA does not contain or collect any new information, but if modified you can only take away features by taking away DNA or add DNA which it already has. Sure you can add DNA from a lion into a mouse but the lions DNA will not correctly work with its organs and general build. Even if you could, the mouse will still be a mouse, as a animal is classed mostly by it's actions and behavior. (A monkey dressed in human cloths and walking around does not impose the monkey is at human). It is a monkey still, same with the mouse.

-GodSands
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:24:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 2:27:05 PM, LeafRod wrote:
*1. Christianity is a standard of good conduct. [4]*
*2. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are branches of Christianity. [5][6]*
*3. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are standards of good conduct. (Substitution,1,2)*
4. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are Pro-Life. [#9][#10]
5. Pro-Life means being in opposition to abortion [#11].
6. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are in opposition to abortion. (4,5)
7. Abortion is not in accord with Catholicism and Southern Baptism. (6)
8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. *(Substitution,3,7)*
9. Abortion is morally wrong. (8, definition of "morality")

—mongeese.

Actually, the proof is perfectly valid.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:26:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Al Gore did not invent the internet but he did invent Global Warming

-wonderwoman
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:26:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At multiple different occurences, a whole lot of people claimed:
Omnipotence paradox

Of course, searching debates for the omnipotence paradox will give you more than enough examples. The omnipotence paradox is my number one pet peeve in theological debates, just because it so blatantly assumes the definition of omnipotence where none are given, but more mild ones are implied.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:32:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 4:24:03 PM, mongeese wrote:

Actually, the proof is perfectly valid.

Besides false premises i take issue with this:
8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. *(Substitution,3,7)*

For though it's stated Cath. and Bapt. are standards of good conduct it does not state that these are the only such 'standards', and given the possibility of other standards claim 8 is not valid.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:34:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 4:32:08 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/18/2009 4:24:03 PM, mongeese wrote:

Actually, the proof is perfectly valid.

Besides false premises
All premises were sourced.
i take issue with this:
8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. *(Substitution,3,7)*

For though it's stated Cath. and Bapt. are standards of good conduct it does not state that these are the only such 'standards', and given the possibility of other standards claim 8 is not valid.

I never stated that they were the only standards of good conduct. I merely said that they are standards of good conduct, and therefore, abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. I did not say that aboriton is not in accord with any standards of good conduct.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:45:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
mongeese, I was quite clearly referencing that "proof" in context, since out of context it is absolutely meaningless and can be used to justify anything. In this sense your "argument" is pretty bad both ways—it can't be used to actually justify anything, and in and of itself, it can be used to justify anything. Hence, uselessness.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:46:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just so I can emphasize how useless your logic was, I was using context in the loosest possible sense in the previous post.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:47:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 4:45:43 PM, LeafRod wrote:
mongeese, I was quite clearly referencing that "proof" in context, since out of context it is absolutely meaningless and can be used to justify anything. In this sense your "argument" is pretty bad both ways—it can't be used to actually justify anything, and in and of itself, it can be used to justify anything. Hence, uselessness.

Actually, it shows abortion to be immoral in at least some contexts, and therefore can affirm the resolution "Abortion is immoral."
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:49:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Maybe if you care nothing for actual argumentation, intelligence, sensibility, or anything that any person worth anything cares about, and instead only about perhaps being able to win some points on a website.

That debate was clearly about universal morality—otherwise, it's not a debate at all.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 4:58:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 4:34:44 PM, mongeese wrote:

8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct.

Your contention isn't specific enough to be valid which means necessarily true given the premises. For It very well may be in accord with many standards of good conduct, just not those specific standards.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 5:04:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 4:58:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/18/2009 4:34:44 PM, mongeese wrote:

8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct.

Your contention isn't specific enough to be valid which means necessarily true given the premises. For It very well may be in accord with many standards of good conduct, just not those specific standards.

eh I guess I'm taking the semantics too far, but I wonder what that definition of morality was, and how contention 9 can be valid if there are different (opposing) standards on which to make such moral judgements
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 5:04:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
" Now, on to the evidence of the global conspiracy run by the Illuminati.

====
First, let's establish the existence of the Illuminati.
====

"The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never
appear in any place in its own name, but always concealed by another
name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the lower degrees of
Freemasonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it,
and therefore takes little notice of it." - Adam Weishaupt (founder of Bavarian Illuminati)

"There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult. This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. Its membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally." - Victor Marchetti (CIA Director's Assistant)

"The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical
or republican, had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy,
international in power and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this
semi-occult power which....pushed the mass of the American people into
the cauldron of World War I." British military historian Major General
J.F.C. Fuller

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise
power from behind the scenes." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - President Woodrow Wilson

"Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States
can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the
Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a
Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and
political system, another body representing another form of government
- a bureaucratic elite." Senator William Jenner

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable." Senator
William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations
Committee

"It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and
the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States." - George Washington

If you are in doubt that they exist, here are the names of several Illuminati whistleblowers (ex-members warning us):

- Leo Lyon Zagami (Illuminati Grand Master born into the Italian aristocratic bloodline)
- Svali (not her real name, an Illuminati mind control programmer born into the )
- Benjamin Fulford (33rd Degree Freemason who has contact with Illuminati and actually interviewed D. Rockefeller)
- John Coleman (former British MI6 Agent)

====
Next we will establish the fact that the elites of the world are the Illuminati (or at least controlled by).
====

The 3 primary globalist groups are the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commision.

"The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not
only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions
at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but
it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure
from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S.
from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of
a one-world dictatorship." Former Congressman John Rarick

"NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order."
Henry Kissinger (a Global Elite, CFR member)

Now, here you will see that these elite groups include just about everyone in power, including corporations. According to Leo Zagami, these groups are Illuminati fronts.

http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......

====
Now we will establish their intent and if their agenda has been in effect for centuries.
====

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need
is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World
Order." - David Rockefeller

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create
a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under
the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I
do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope,
generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
- Congressman Larry P. McDonald

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy
the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the
citizen of this plight." John F. Kennedy

"...the emerging New World Order we now see, this
long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long." - President
George H. W. Bush

"NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order." - Henry Kissinger

"The New World Order is a world that has a supernational
authority to regulate world commerce and industry; an international
organization that would control the production and consumption of oil;
an international currency that would replace the dollar; a World
Development Fund that would make funds available to free and Communist
nations alike; and an international police force to enforce the edicts
of the New World Order." Former West German Chancellor

"In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason....Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control information....Human beings become increasingly manipulable and malleable." - Zbigniew Brzezinski (a Global Elite, co-founder of Trilateral Commision, CFR member, adviser to 5 Presidents, founder of Al Qaida)

"This will encourage tendencies through the next several decades toward a Technotronic Era, a dictatorship, leaving even less room for political procedures as we know them. Finally, looking ahead to the end of the century, the possibility of biochemical mind control and genetic tinkering with man, including beings which will function like men and reason like them as well, could give rise to some difficult questions." - Zbigniew Brzezinski

"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - George H. W. Bush

Now, if you still want to believe that this world government will be benevolent, read this.

This is a list of the 21 Goals of the Illuminati
http://www.apfn.org......

====
The Illuminati Power Structure
====

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com......

Here is a very detailed description of the power structure by ex-Illuminati member Svali.
http://svalispeaks.wordpress.com...;

- GeoLaureate8
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 5:16:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 4:49:35 PM, LeafRod wrote:
Maybe if you care nothing for actual argumentation, intelligence, sensibility, or anything that any person worth anything cares about, and instead only about perhaps being able to win some points on a website.

That debate was clearly about universal morality—otherwise, it's not a debate at all.

With the given definition of morality, the only thing that could possibly be done was comparing it with standards of good conduct. There's really no other way to go by such a definition.

And morality was not defined to be universal, and thus, was not universal.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 5:17:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 4:58:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/18/2009 4:34:44 PM, mongeese wrote:

8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct.

Your contention isn't specific enough to be valid which means necessarily true given the premises. For It very well may be in accord with many standards of good conduct, just not those specific standards.

This stems from the ambiguity of a general statement that has no specifications as to how general it is. The sentence itself implied "some," but the morality definition had no implications whatsoever, and could therefore be taken in any direction.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 5:47:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 5:18:51 PM, mongeese wrote:

Well, that's Geo for you. Conspiracy FTW.

Geo has always been a mystery to me. He's obviously a smart guy, but one of his key influences is a total crackpot. David Ike is probably the most idiotic pseudo intellectual that has ever walked on this planet. I hope someday that he steps away from all of his conspiracy junk/psycho babble and moves towards some form of rationalism. At this point he has simply replaced the irrationality of religious dogmatism with other faith claims that are even more irrational and unsupported by evidence.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 5:47:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 4:26:06 PM, Freeman wrote:
Al Gore did not invent the internet but he did invent Global Warming

-wonderwoman

This is just hilarious.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 5:57:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 5:16:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/18/2009 4:49:35 PM, LeafRod wrote:
Maybe if you care nothing for actual argumentation, intelligence, sensibility, or anything that any person worth anything cares about, and instead only about perhaps being able to win some points on a website.

That debate was clearly about universal morality—otherwise, it's not a debate at all.

With the given definition of morality, the only thing that could possibly be done was comparing it with standards of good conduct. There's really no other way to go by such a definition.

And morality was not defined to be universal, and thus, was not universal.

You don't understand.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:52:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:47:15 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 12/18/2009 7:45:50 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 7:44:49 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 12/18/2009 7:38:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 7:34:07 PM, comoncents wrote:
He is not gay.

Comon, he's gay. Just accept it. Just because a man wants to settle down and have kids doesn't mean he is straight - homosexual men have families all the same.

Is this burning down your whole worldview or something? Or are you a little more discriminatory than you like to let on. Don't ask, don't tell must be a good policy for when you were in the army.

He is not gay.

He has not said he is gay so therefore you cannot call confidently call him a gay man.

Anderson Cooper is not gay!

When did he say that he isn't gay?

That does not matter b/c i am not calling him straight.

Bahaha.