Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cultural Relativism

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:14:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
One argument against the idea of universal human rights is that cultures are relative and not every culture respects autonomy and rights. Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen claims that this is not the case-every culture, he notes, has a respect for autonomy, but the rulers often choose to violate autonomy and justify this with force.

I read this story this morning, and I realize that, at least in this case, it is probably very true: http://news.yahoo.com...

So, given that this is true, what is the justification for trapping people in cultures that supposedly have no respect for autonomy given that the people do actually care about it?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 7:01:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:14:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
One argument against the idea of universal human rights is that cultures are relative and not every culture respects autonomy and rights. Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen claims that this is not the case-every culture, he notes, has a respect for autonomy, but the rulers often choose to violate autonomy and justify this with force.

I read this story this morning, and I realize that, at least in this case, it is probably very true: http://news.yahoo.com...

So, given that this is true, what is the justification for trapping people in cultures that supposedly have no respect for autonomy given that the people do actually care about it?

Ruling powers can be corrupt and self serving, and that is justified by force.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 1:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.

It was so dumb that you couldn't refute it . . .
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 1:23:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fact of the matter is that even if cultures disagree with the particulars of rights, the universal basis still exists.

Just because the elites force a system onto a people with violence does not mean that people accept those values. In fact, if they have to justify it with violence, it probably means exactly the opposite.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 1:37:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Define "autonomy" in this context.

BTW, I don't believe in cultural relativism. If one culture produces a less happy person, and greater harm is likely to be done to an individual than another culture that produces more happy people, and less harm is likely to be done to the people of that culture, I would call the second culture superior to the former.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 1:38:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's an excellent documentary about Iran on youtube:

What the guy finds out is that given the choice, women would wear much less restrictive clothing than they are forced to by the religious class. He also finds out that ordinary Iranian people don't hate America all. I agree that humans largely value the same things. There's variation, but enough commonality for universal human rights to be applicable.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 2:36:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 1:37:06 PM, innomen wrote:
Define "autonomy" in this context.

BTW, I don't believe in cultural relativism. If one culture produces a less happy person, and greater harm is likely to be done to an individual than another culture that produces more happy people, and less harm is likely to be done to the people of that culture, I would call the second culture superior to the former.

This assumes you value happiness above other things. If you look at things from YOUR perspective, it will always seem like your values are better than any other culture's values. That's the whole point of "cultural relativism." There is no point of view outside of the fray from which we can say "autonomy" is universal, etc.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 2:46:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 1:37:06 PM, innomen wrote:
Define "autonomy" in this context.

BTW, I don't believe in cultural relativism. If one culture produces a less happy person, and greater harm is likely to be done to an individual than another culture that produces more happy people, and less harm is likely to be done to the people of that culture, I would call the second culture superior to the former.

If that's all your conclusion is, it doesn't contradict cultural relativism. The second culture would actually have to be superior for cultural relativism to be false.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 4:09:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 1:21:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.

It was so dumb that you couldn't refute it . . .

The one going from cultural relativism to objective human rights? There isn't QN argument. You cannot go from a normative cultural relativism to universal normative human rights. Even a assuming one believes you can, you contradict yourself.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:36:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 1:37:06 PM, innomen wrote:
Define "autonomy" in this context.

BTW, I don't believe in cultural relativism. If one culture produces a less happy person, and greater harm is likely to be done to an individual than another culture that produces more happy people, and less harm is likely to be done to the people of that culture, I would call the second culture superior to the former.

The Fool: Ha, Autonomy is just a new Term, made up To Try and Sneak around the bright, Shiny and obvious "Free will" PROBLEM.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 1:37:06 PM, innomen wrote:
Define "autonomy" in this context.

BTW, I don't believe in cultural relativism. If one culture produces a less happy person, and greater harm is likely to be done to an individual than another culture that produces more happy people, and less harm is likely to be done to the people of that culture, I would call the second culture superior to the former.

You are basing it off the guideline of "happiness", which could be culturally arbitrary . . .
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:54:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 4:09:34 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:21:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.

It was so dumb that you couldn't refute it . . .

The one going from cultural relativism to objective human rights? There isn't QN argument. You cannot go from a normative cultural relativism to universal normative human rights. Even a assuming one believes you can, you contradict yourself.

I wasn't saying "cultural relativism is false; therefore human rights are universal". What I did do was respond to an objection to liberal universalism. I did offer reasons for presuming liberal universalism, namely that respect for autonomy is an underlying belief that people have. At the most basic level, everyone wants her own autonomy respected. Even those who preach communitarianism (the elites) preserve their own autonomy.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:55:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:36:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:37:06 PM, innomen wrote:
Define "autonomy" in this context.

BTW, I don't believe in cultural relativism. If one culture produces a less happy person, and greater harm is likely to be done to an individual than another culture that produces more happy people, and less harm is likely to be done to the people of that culture, I would call the second culture superior to the former.

The Fool: Ha, Autonomy is just a new Term, made up To Try and Sneak around the bright, Shiny and obvious "Free will" PROBLEM.

There is no "Free will" problem. Even if we do not have free will, the fact of the matter is that we are biologically hardwired to treat others as if they do have free will. There is no reason to throw it out of any moral calculus.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 4:09:34 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:21:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.

The Fool: Oh, then you haven't read that much Feminist philosophy. Its so bad, YOU NEVER HEAR OF IT. Its just kept among themselves. They attack reasoning all together. Claiming its male Bias. LOL!!!


The one going from cultural relativism to objective human rights? There isn't QN argument. You cannot go from a normative cultural relativism to universal normative human rights. Even a assuming one believes you can, you contradict yourself.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 7:21:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:55:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:36:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Ha, Autonomy is just a new Term, made up To Try and Sneak around the bright, Shiny and obvious "Free will" PROBLEM.

There is no "Free will" problem. Even if we do not have free will, the fact of the matter is that we are biologically hardwired to treat others as if they do have free will.

The Fool: Lets try and speak of True and existing things first. Before you through the Word "Fact" around.

WTF.
Royal Liablity: There is no "Free will" problem. Even if we do not have free will..

The Fool: Okay Stop right there. IF there is no free will, then Free Will is FALSE notion. Not existing is a problem for something. If it is supposed to be something. No?
IF we don"t even know what free is, we cannot even claim that we treat people as free.

Royal Liablity: Even if we do not have free will, the fact of the matter is that we are biologically hardwired to treat others as if they do have free will.

The Fool: The fact of the matter is, first and foremost, whether it is a fact or not. Remember Mythology and/or Ideologies are not Facts. Nor can will they ever become so! They are Faiths!!

Royal Liablity: The fact of the matter is that we are biologically hardwired to treat others as if they do have free will

The Fool: Royal do you really believe the things you say? Or are you just believing whatever agrees with yourself, No matter how true or how Crazy or immoral it is.

All it takes to fatally refute your mythology is for there to be ONE person who doesn't think of people as being free.

Even if you "Royal" beleive yourself that humans are hardwired Biologically to Treat people as thought they are free, is the very proof, that YOU ROYAL PALADIN, Don"t treat people as free but as people who are Biologically Forced to treat people as free.

Flawless Fatality.

You"ve been FOOLED!. Royally, by yourself. Again, AGAIN!
<(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 7:56:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:59:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/7/2013 4:09:34 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:21:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.


The Fool: Oh, then you haven't read that much Feminist philosophy. Its so bad, YOU NEVER HEAR OF IT. Its just kept among themselves. They attack reasoning all together. Claiming its male Bias. LOL!!!

We've had this debate before, and you've completely lost. You seem to love to attack equal rights for women, but if I do the same thing for your race that you do to my sex, you have a problem.

The one going from cultural relativism to objective human rights? There isn't QN argument. You cannot go from a normative cultural relativism to universal normative human rights. Even a assuming one believes you can, you contradict yourself.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 7:57:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 7:21:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:55:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:36:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Ha, Autonomy is just a new Term, made up To Try and Sneak around the bright, Shiny and obvious "Free will" PROBLEM.

There is no "Free will" problem. Even if we do not have free will, the fact of the matter is that we are biologically hardwired to treat others as if they do have free will.

The Fool: Lets try and speak of True and existing things first. Before you through the Word "Fact" around.

WTF.
Royal Liablity: There is no "Free will" problem. Even if we do not have free will..

The Fool: Okay Stop right there. IF there is no free will, then Free Will is FALSE notion. Not existing is a problem for something. If it is supposed to be something. No?
IF we don"t even know what free is, we cannot even claim that we treat people as free.

Royal Liablity: Even if we do not have free will, the fact of the matter is that we are biologically hardwired to treat others as if they do have free will.

The Fool: The fact of the matter is, first and foremost, whether it is a fact or not. Remember Mythology and/or Ideologies are not Facts. Nor can will they ever become so! They are Faiths!!

Royal Liablity: The fact of the matter is that we are biologically hardwired to treat others as if they do have free will

The Fool: Royal do you really believe the things you say? Or are you just believing whatever agrees with yourself, No matter how true or how Crazy or immoral it is.

All it takes to fatally refute your mythology is for there to be ONE person who doesn't think of people as being free.

Even if you "Royal" beleive yourself that humans are hardwired Biologically to Treat people as thought they are free, is the very proof, that YOU ROYAL PALADIN, Don"t treat people as free but as people who are Biologically Forced to treat people as free.

Flawless Fatality.

You"ve been FOOLED!. Royally, by yourself. Again, AGAIN!
<(8J)

This isn't my original argument-Kant made a similar claim in Groundworks. If I am biologically forced to treat people as if they have free will, then why shouldn't I treat them as if they have free will? I cannot do anything else.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 8:00:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:14:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
One argument against the idea of universal human rights is that cultures are relative and not every culture respects autonomy and rights. Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen claims that this is not the case-every culture, he notes, has a respect for autonomy, but the rulers often choose to violate autonomy and justify this with force.

I read this story this morning, and I realize that, at least in this case, it is probably very true: http://news.yahoo.com...

So, given that this is true, what is the justification for trapping people in cultures that supposedly have no respect for autonomy given that the people do actually care about it?

It does not logically follow that because different cultures value relatively different morals, that morality must itself be relative. This encapsulates the IS-OUGHT PROBLEM discussed by Hume.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 8:25:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 8:00:18 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:14:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
One argument against the idea of universal human rights is that cultures are relative and not every culture respects autonomy and rights. Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen claims that this is not the case-every culture, he notes, has a respect for autonomy, but the rulers often choose to violate autonomy and justify this with force.

I read this story this morning, and I realize that, at least in this case, it is probably very true: http://news.yahoo.com...

So, given that this is true, what is the justification for trapping people in cultures that supposedly have no respect for autonomy given that the people do actually care about it?

It does not logically follow that because different cultures value relatively different morals, that morality must itself be relative. This encapsulates the IS-OUGHT PROBLEM discussed by Hume.

Excellent reply.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 9:18:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 8:25:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 8:00:18 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:14:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
One argument against the idea of universal human rights is that cultures are relative and not every culture respects autonomy and rights. Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen claims that this is not the case-every culture, he notes, has a respect for autonomy, but the rulers often choose to violate autonomy and justify this with force.

I read this story this morning, and I realize that, at least in this case, it is probably very true: http://news.yahoo.com...

So, given that this is true, what is the justification for trapping people in cultures that supposedly have no respect for autonomy given that the people do actually care about it?

It does not logically follow that because different cultures value relatively different morals, that morality must itself be relative. This encapsulates the IS-OUGHT PROBLEM discussed by Hume.

Excellent reply.

The Fool: Stupid post.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 9:45:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 1:21:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.

It was so dumb that you couldn't refute it . . .

The Fool: Its not an argument. Its begging the question. You need to argue that they are Universal First! If they were they would be Apriori. . If they are not all ready in ALL OUR MINDS , and certainly not in our bodies, then what are you even talking about. What is this secret Isotaric metaphysical domain. That you know exist in us that we can't know about. How are you in other people minds!!?

They cannot merely be concepts but true concepts. That is the concept must actually refer, correspond, Reflect, something Other then Itself. I have a conception of Idea of a Unicorn, But whether or it relates an actual Unicorn is what makes it a true belief.

Without that you are committing the EARTH IN FLAT. Fallacy. AKA its true because we all think so and/agree.

OR A MIGHT VS RIGHT Fallacy: Its true because there is more of us to Enforce them upon you. And/or we will hurt you bad, if try and break free from Your SECRET "only we know", nature shackles we put on you.

Or Appeal to faith: I believe it therefore its true. Its my religion or Ideology Therefore its true.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 10:12:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 9:45:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Its not an argument. Its begging the question. You need to argue that they are Universal First!

As far as I've been able to ascertain, both moral relativism (Meta-ethical) and Moral Universalism are positive claims, each necessitating it's own burden of proof. There's no logical imperative, that I can find, that one should take precedence over the other in that regard.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 2:06:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 7:56:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:59:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.


The Fool: Oh, then you haven't read that much Feminist philosophy. It"s so bad, YOU NEVER HEAR OF IT. It"s just kept among themselves. They attack reasoning all together. Claiming its male Bias. LOL!!!

We've had this debate before, and you've completely lost. You seem to love to attack equal rights for women, but if I do the same thing for your race that you do to my sex, you have a problem.

The Fool: I would agree with you but I want to accidentally lie. Did you see what I just did Claims? I gave a Decisive and fatal, deductive refutation. As I always do I made sure to show the exact qoute so there is not possible mistake.

This kind of refutation can make people hateful enough to make up further fallacious claims. Possibly to create RED HERRINGs to distract from the obvious.

As chivalrous as I am Foolish, I will for the meantime, pretend that everything I have ever known, learned or believed is false. To give you a great opportunity, to defend your own claims made here, in an honest of OPEN manner.

For If you speak truthfully, justly and/or of Good Morals. Then let us not hesitate to call you Liar, immoral or cowardly, should you choose to flee, run, or hide behind others, for the possibility of preventing such Truth, Justness and Goodness spread from your wisdom in to our hearts, enabling us to be better people.

For I am forced by my love for wisdom to do no less then challenge you Royal Paladin openly to a Banishing match, a debate that if you can demonstrate that your words speak of any truth. Then I should think myself so foolish that I will live in exile from DDO for 1 week. But in all justness. If perhaps it has been clearly and distinctly demonstrated that you speak falsely with the intention to deceive then you must LEAVE DDO for 1 Week as well. Or let it be known forever that you are a liar and a coward.

And that we are justly to thinkith so of anybody. Who openly slanders another but then when ask to support here claims. She shrewdly shy"s away, like one who has not yet become their own person, but is still rather just and appendage of someone else.

As a child who holds tightly to the pant leg of a parent, peaking out from behind it every once in a while, to see if the foolish looking character, has seized to exist. But as to Royal like fat kid behind a street post playing hiding go seek.

I can still see you.

Do you speak truthfully or do your words taste like a bull just took a Fresh, hot, steaming sh!t in your mouth right now? In which the steam can be seen running out your nostrils

All you have to do is live up to your own claims THAT IS IT. Easy win.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 2:54:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:52:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:37:06 PM, innomen wrote:
Define "autonomy" in this context.

BTW, I don't believe in cultural relativism. If one culture produces a less happy person, and greater harm is likely to be done to an individual than another culture that produces more happy people, and less harm is likely to be done to the people of that culture, I would call the second culture superior to the former.

You are basing it off the guideline of "happiness", which could be culturally arbitrary . . .

Happiness is not culturally arbitrary, happiness is a real thing that can be measured in real terms like suicide rates, alcoholism rates, drug addiction rates, divorce rates, depression rates etc. If one culture is riddled with these things consistently, and another is not, one is more happy than the other.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:02:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 9:45:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: It's not an argument. Its begging the question. You need to argue that they are Universal First!

As far as I've been able to ascertain, both moral relativism (Meta-ethical) and Moral Universalism are positive claims, each necessitating it's own burden of proof.
There's no logical imperative, that I can find, that one should take precedence over the other in that regard.

The Fool: I am glad to share what little I know with my fellow lovers of wisdom. But if and only if you are of that type spirit. You will recognize A little goes along way. And often many times Further than more. For it is the wiser to have less, information, in a synchronic Harmonium, then to have much learnedness, of dis-coordinated, incomplete, confused and or groundless, opinions.

Let's start the Show shall we.
But this show must be interrupted by my foolish attention problem that cannot avoid being distracted, by the screaming selective nature of a line, of mine, stripped of context and time, which binds the meaning, in shrined in it, by my mind.

Let's examine it closely-er. Shall, we. Yes We shall!! Indeed.

"It's not an argument. Its begging the question."

Hmm, Either my wits deceive me, or it appears to be that I am claiming that something. Maybe a thing said is not an argument. But rather begging the question. Or something like that.

I will rub my foolish balls to reveal what I was referring. Too.
It, is, giving me a riddle. It's says the phrase has something to do with Left. But the opposite.
Right? Right?

Ahh I get it, I must have been talking about Metaphysical, status the existence of Rights and how they are Universal throughout all human nature, But yet not in any nature that we know of. Yes that makes perfect sense with the next statement.

"You need to argue that they [The Rights] are Universal First! "

And it's all coming back to me now.

But I feel bad for such a Lonely line to be out on in the cold, without its buddies to connect with.

Now Your big bully response to that lonely marginalized and discriminated line (or whatever Ideological Fad, is now in fashion) is the following?

"As far as I've been able to ascertain, both moral relativism (Meta-ethical) and Moral Universalism are positive claims, each necessitating its own burden of proof."

Am I the fool or am I The Fool?

In fact this reminds me of the WU-TANG CLAN. They have a Track on the 36 Chambers where a wise Shaolin master, Says,

"YOU MUST THINK, BEFORE YOU MOVE!"

That is all he said, But a Little goes a Long ways, for the lover of wisdom. And often many times Further than more""" And so on and so forth.

Shaolin Fool!

<(8C)

http://youtu.be...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:34:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 9:45:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:21:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.

It was so dumb that you couldn't refute it . . .

The Fool: Its not an argument. Its begging the question. You need to argue that they are Universal First! If they were they would be Apriori. . If they are not all ready in ALL OUR MINDS , and certainly not in our bodies, then what are you even talking about. What is this secret Isotaric metaphysical domain. That you know exist in us that we can't know about. How are you in other people minds!!?


They cannot merely be concepts but true concepts. That is the concept must actually refer, correspond, Reflect, something Other then Itself. I have a conception of Idea of a Unicorn, But whether or it relates an actual Unicorn is what makes it a true belief.

Without that you are committing the EARTH IN FLAT. Fallacy. AKA its true because we all think so and/agree.

OR A MIGHT VS RIGHT Fallacy: Its true because there is more of us to Enforce them upon you. And/or we will hurt you bad, if try and break free from Your SECRET "only we know", nature shackles we put on you.

Or Appeal to faith: I believe it therefore its true. Its my religion or Ideology Therefore its true.

I never claimed that just because we believe something, it is true. I said that it is impossible for us to conceive of this any other way. It is impossible to know the truth about the world. When we view the world, we are limited by our perceptions of it. If we are hardwired to act as if we have free will, then there is no reason to deny that we do not since from our perspective, we do have it.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:37:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 2:06:16 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/7/2013 7:56:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:59:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:20:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is still the stupidest argument I've ever heard anyone ever put forth for a position. And I've heard of political lesbianism.


The Fool: Oh, then you haven't read that much Feminist philosophy. It"s so bad, YOU NEVER HEAR OF IT. It"s just kept among themselves. They attack reasoning all together. Claiming its male Bias. LOL!!!

We've had this debate before, and you've completely lost. You seem to love to attack equal rights for women, but if I do the same thing for your race that you do to my sex, you have a problem.

The Fool: I would agree with you but I want to accidentally lie. Did you see what I just did Claims? I gave a Decisive and fatal, deductive refutation. As I always do I made sure to show the exact qoute so there is not possible mistake.

This kind of refutation can make people hateful enough to make up further fallacious claims. Possibly to create RED HERRINGs to distract from the obvious.

As chivalrous as I am Foolish, I will for the meantime, pretend that everything I have ever known, learned or believed is false. To give you a great opportunity, to defend your own claims made here, in an honest of OPEN manner.

For If you speak truthfully, justly and/or of Good Morals. Then let us not hesitate to call you Liar, immoral or cowardly, should you choose to flee, run, or hide behind others, for the possibility of preventing such Truth, Justness and Goodness spread from your wisdom in to our hearts, enabling us to be better people.

For I am forced by my love for wisdom to do no less then challenge you Royal Paladin openly to a Banishing match, a debate that if you can demonstrate that your words speak of any truth. Then I should think myself so foolish that I will live in exile from DDO for 1 week. But in all justness. If perhaps it has been clearly and distinctly demonstrated that you speak falsely with the intention to deceive then you must LEAVE DDO for 1 Week as well. Or let it be known forever that you are a liar and a coward.

And that we are justly to thinkith so of anybody. Who openly slanders another but then when ask to support here claims. She shrewdly shy"s away, like one who has not yet become their own person, but is still rather just and appendage of someone else.

As a child who holds tightly to the pant leg of a parent, peaking out from behind it every once in a while, to see if the foolish looking character, has seized to exist. But as to Royal like fat kid behind a street post playing hiding go seek.

I can still see you.

Do you speak truthfully or do your words taste like a bull just took a Fresh, hot, steaming sh!t in your mouth right now? In which the steam can be seen running out your nostrils

All you have to do is live up to your own claims THAT IS IT. Easy win.

What topic in Feminism would you like to debate?