San Bernardino

[heelmanwilm]

Lol you're in quicksand. The more u squirm the more over your head u get. Of course taking my stuff and enslaving me would be wrong to me and most people. But its not an absolute. There are times taking stuff from someone and enslaving them is right. U can stomp your foot all u like but its still subjective.

maybe we're butting heads over semantics. What is your def of "wrong"?

 

[gunslingerdick]

There ate times taking stuff from someone and enslaving them is right.

Again, I'm not choosing a side here but when would taking someone's stuff and enslaving them be morally right? I'm just having a hard time thinking of when that could ever be right.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Again, I'm not choosing a side here but when would taking someone's stuff and enslaving them be morally right? I'm just having a hard time thinking of when that could ever be right.

Well cases of eminent domain and the manifest destiny doctrine as examples for taking stuff. Involuntary quarantine, involuntary evacuations and martial law for enslaving (i'm assuming a def of physically forcing people to do your desire against their will)

 

[strummingram]

Again, I'm not choosing a side here but when would...enslaving them be morally right? I'm just having a hard time thinking of when that could ever be right.

Think of any Virginia or North Carolina plantation from 1700-1865.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Think of any Virginia or North Carolina plantation from 1700-1865.

It was happening, sure. But was it morally right? I doubt you'll find anyone that would say it is.

 

[strummingram]

It was happening, sure. But was it morally right? I doubt you'll find anyone that would say it is.

Not NOW! But, THEN it was absolutely morally right. It was accepted and encouraged and seen as a completely, morally "right" endeavor.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Not NOW! But, THEN it was absolutely morally right. It was accepted and encouraged and seen as a completely, morally "right" endeavor.

Well then when we abolished slavery, were we more morally right?

 

[strummingram]

Well then when we abolished slavery, were we more morally right?

The subjectivity shifted. It is always evolving. It's never static.

I have no doubt that you could have gone onto any of those plantations and found those enslaved (especially if they were born into it) who were not at all bothered by their condition in life. It was as acceptable and accepted as the "way it is" just as it was to those who owned them and ruled-over them. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that MOST of the enslaved felt that way! Evidence of that is visible today, right now, in parallels in our own societal parameters.

However, along the way, it became less and less acceptable, and finally became unacceptable. Now, without even pausing for consideration, we instinctively (most of us) feel that "ownership" of another human being is absolutely unacceptable... in the way it was done prior to the Civil War. But, ownership still exists. It may be more subtle, it may be less confining, or restricting in a physical sense, but it's there all the same.

 

[theJRG1]

Witness some twisting (above, post #128), @heelmanwilm.

How hard is it to acknowledge, strumming, that slavery was wrong regardless of perceptions, legality, culture, acceptance, or benevolence? Just as wrong yesterday as it is today or would be tomorrow?

Anyone still need an example of "wrong"? See here:

There are times taking stuff from someone and enslaving them is right.

Only a sociopath could utter such. Or endorse it.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Witness some twisting (above, post #128), @heelmanwilm.

How hard is it to acknowledge, strumming, that slavery was wrong regardless of perceptions, legality, culture, acceptance, or benevolence? Just as wrong yesterday as it is today or would be tomorrow?

Anyone still need an example of "wrong"? See here:



Only a sociopath could utter such. Or endorse it.

so now u deny historical fact? And i'm the sociopath? Lol. let me guess, u never were on any debate teams. why wont u answer the question in how u define "wrong". Go ahead, i'll let u use any def u want and i'll still prove u wrong. U scared nancy?

 

[strummingram]

How hard is it to acknowledge, strumming, that slavery was wrong regardless of perceptions, legality, culture, acceptance, or benevolence? Just as wrong yesterday as it is today or would be tomorrow?

Is it wrong by my standards today? yes, absolutely! RELATIVE TO THE TIME, it was, in no way, shape, or form, "wrong."

Should we remove the Confederate Generals from Stone Mountain? Should we rename all of the streets and monuments in the South that are named for Confederate soldiers? Was what they fought for "wrong?" If you ask any soldier, of any army in history, they are convinced that they are "fighting for what's right." Right and Wrong is defined more by what benefits you more or less!

 

[theJRG1]

@heelmanwilm, How could you prove anything? Your worldview depends on everything being relative or "subjective". If there's no such thing as objective or absolute reality, how could there ever BE any proof?

Your moronic concept of "proof" has already been on display in this thread, no? Clarification: your saying "nannynannypoopoo" over and over hardly constitutes as proof, mister debate team.

Without a standard of truth, if everything's subjective, as you say, where are the goalposts, except for where you move them?

 

[UNC71-00]

@heelmanwilm,

Without a standard of truth, if everything's subjective, as you say, where are the goalposts, except for where you move them?

You assume everyone is playing the same game- yours. Thats simply not the case. Heelman asked you repeatedly to define wrong. Why have you avoided doing so?

You also seem to think you are smarter and superior to everyone else, which does not serve to bring people to consider your position with an open mind.

 

[strummingram]

@heelmanwilm, How could you prove anything? Your worldview depends on everything being relative or "subjective". If there's no such thing as objective or absolute reality, how could there ever BE any proof?

Your moronic concept of "proof" has already been on display in this thread, no? Clarification: your saying "nannynannypoopoo" over and over hardly constitutes as proof, mister debate team.

Without a standard of truth, if everything's subjective, as you say, where are the goalposts, except for where you move them?

Heelman is not saying that he lacks his own understanding of what he considers Right and Wrong, or even something to be a Truth. Nor am I. What we're trying to get you to concede is that those "right's and wrong's" are relative/subjective to us, as individuals.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Proof relies on LOGIC not by right or wrong. Not colloquial logic mind u but you know the real kind evaluated by rules of evidence and deductive reasoning and so forth. Basically the opposite of whatever process you're using. For instance, u claim to know an absolute definition of wrong. But u refuse to reveal what its based on or even give a definition of it. yet you rely on this definition to claim my stance is "moronic". Thats what we call "illogical". Whereas my argument relies on historical facts and present day examples that support the idea that right and wrong, by whatever def u would like to use, do not have absolute natures and do in fact change, sometimes drastically, from culture to culture, time period to time period and region to region. That leads to a LOGICAL conclusion and is PROOF that my stance is correct.
And let me spare u the oh so predictable response that if there is no absolute truth then logic proves nothing. Its logical that water placed in a freezer will freeze. But its not an absolute truth. Sometimes its unplugged. Heh heh.

 

[theJRG1]

Heelman asked you repeatedly to define wrong. Why have you avoided doing so?

To define something, does it not makes sense that words must have actual meaning? I can define things all day, if definition actually means something. I'll ask you the same thing I asked him: If I came to your house, and took something of yours, without your permission, is it not wrong?

Disregard any variables mitigating your ownership, as collectivist constructs such as "eminent domain" only muddy that side of the question. As far as I am concerned, you own those things you possess. But more importantly, I do not. I come to your house and take something that I don't own. No matter what spin I want to put on it, is that not theft, and is it not wrong?

heelman chose not to directly answer that question. His response amounted to "Nope, taxes." If that exchange makes it seem like I think I'm smarter and superior, well dadgum. If there's zero basis or standard for debate, the only "smart" thing to do is to not get on that merry-go-round. In other words, if your opponent says to you there is no reality, only what he perceives, where then is there any provable truth? If you know that this opponent can not and will not accept any proof, what's the point of debating him? heelman can rationalize thievery and even slavery. I can't. He thinks behavior is a product of his environment, and he makes a fine modern-day Herr Gorring in this Nuremberg.

What do you think? Wrong/ not wrong for me to take your shit?

 

[heelmanwilm]

Yes nuremburg is an excellent example of how right and wrong is subjective. Tks again.

I did DIRECTLY answer your question assuming you can wrap your brain around the metaphor of the govt representing you. Evidently that was too confusing a leap for ya. You yourself admitted taxation was theft. The govt takes your money right out of your bank, will come take your HOUSE even. Now most of us see that (taxation) as right. But some dont and have died defending that opinion. Thats what we call "subjective".

But i'll dumb it down for u. U claim that yourself coming to my house and taking my stuff is absolutely wrong. Meaning NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ITS ALWAYS WRONG. thats what ABSOLUTE means. Well thats not true. I can present dozens of scenarios where u comng to my house and taking my stuff against my will would be viewed as "right" by not only some people but the VAST MAJORITY of people. Hell just look at history. Entire civilizations have been buit on theft of other people. These people were just as convinced they were right as the victims were convinced they were weong. Fact is there is no behavior, no matter how heinous or nonsensical, that hasnt been "right" either by qualification or by humankind embracing it as right at one time. Cannibalism? Check. Pedophilia? Check. Genocide? Check. ALL were considered "right". So u want to play or have u had enough?

 

[heelmanwilm]

U see this guy in another thread agrees with me. His post embodies the very definition of right and wrong being subjective. It is PRECISELY what strum and myself are trying to say! This guy gets it!


"I can decide what I think is right or wrong, and live or die with the consequences, without the external "support" structure. I've had to change my mind on things, more than once."

Priceless

 

[strummingram]

U see this guy in another thread agrees with me. His post embodies the very definition of right and wrong being subjective. It is PRECISELY what strum and myself are trying to say! This guy gets it!


"I can decide what I think is right or wrong, and live or die with the consequences, without the external "support" structure. I've had to change my mind on things, more than once."

Priceless

I noticed that, too. I didn't want to derail that thread.