BrickHorn

And look how far you’ve come! You’re now a dumbass passionate 50-something year-old.

We do?

Exactly. Go do charity in a nice, safe neighborhood where people aren’t so fucking needy all the time.

Next they will lay siege to White Castle.

To be fair, she did graduate valedictorian of Barry University, which is one of the *checks notes* 435 most prestigious universities in the United States. With her track record at Barry, I’m confident Loomer could have maintained a passing GPA even at a far more rigorous school such as Texas Tech or Sam Houston State.

Huh. Weird. Not sure why I thought to make a whole sarcastic post about the dangers of assuming things when you said all along that you were assuming something. Sorry about that.

And aside from jumping to conclusions, rushing to judgment, and blindly accepting inflammatory claims, assuming is probably the best thing to do at this point.

+rep for correct spelling of “ordnance.”

“In war, truth is the first casualty.” The mass media rushing atrocity stories to print is unsurprising to say the least. Best to take a breath and wait for further investigation to clear things up. But that’s not how human beings work, for the most part.

*ordnance

I used “universal” in a far more limited sense. It’s limited to the set of moral systems we observe. It isn’t universal in some metaphysical sense, as if the entire cosmos is filled with uniform morality rules. It’s just that the overwhelming majority of human cultures generally agree on the same basic principles. So the idea that morality differs culture to culture and is thus “relative” in that sense just doesn’t play out in fact… even though it’s also not objective. And another thing: depending on how you define the bounds of a “culture,” morality differs more within any given culture than between cultures. Psychopaths, for example, employ a very different morality than do the rest of us.

No. There is no basis for determining objective moral truth in my view. There are moral systems that exist and, because they all result from running the same process under similar enough circumstances, they share common features. But that doesn’t mean those common features are “right” in any objective sense or that different circumstances would not produce very different moral rules. You set up a false dichotomy. Seems like everyone pretty much saw right through it.

OP’s framing sets up a false dichotomy. “Moral facts exist objectively, independently from anyone’s personal beliefs” and “Moral facts and values are all completely relative and dependent on one's culture” are not two opposites that exhaust the range of possibilities. For example, in my view morality is not objective in the sense that it exists independent of human beings. Only humans (and maybe some higher mammals) have morals. Morality is a behavioral trait: we do certain things, refrain from other things, and react when others do or don’t do things. Absent man in the universe, morality has no meaning, no purpose, and no source. But that does not mean that morality is “completely relative and dependent on one’s culture.” Many moral concepts are universal among human cultures. That’s not surprising because, as a behavioral trait, morality has been subject to evolutionary pressure. As a result, moral precepts most important to group survival show up pretty much everywhere, while others that are less critical vary between groups. It’s the same for other evolved behaviors, such as religion.

Moral relativism vs moral objectivism is a pointless debate. It pits two wrong answers against each other and generates nothing but nonsense arguments.

This is unreal: WTF? How do you kill someone driving drunk, get caught driving drunk again, and somehow not spend the rest of your miserable life in prison after that?

Whose conspiracy theory is that? And for maybe the sixth time on these threads, fuck you and your disingenuous bullshit. To the ignore list you go.

Sigh. Your shit is tired. Shouldn’t you be on the DT thread contradicting yourself about the reliability of atrocity stories?

Let’s be clear here. @chainsaw did not write what you attribute to him. In particular, he never blamed “the Jews.” He used the pronoun “they,” in response to this post which was about “Israel:” His point was that Israel - a state, not an ethnic or religious group - could have done more to defend itself and its people, given what he thinks they knew at the time. I’m not arguing that he’s right about that. But your paraphrasing of his statement is inaccurate and it unjustly implies a much darker meaning than I read in his post.

That’s a pretty strong allegation. Do you have an actual quote to back it up?

It is eerie outside. Not a cloud in the sky near noon but it’s like someone dimmed the lights to 40%. Plus there are little crescents of light in ever tree’s shadow. Pretty cool.

What the fuck? Because our government took actions that most of us criticize and call out as reckless, we can’t criticize another government when they act similarly? That makes zero sense.

With all due respect: fuck you. I’m sick of the knee jerk antisemitism accusations being lobbed around. It’s horseshit designed to silence legitimate discussion. No one is blaming “the Jewish people” for anything. At most, some question the actions of the state of Israel and its hard right leadership.

UNICEF is reporting that 700+ Palestinian children were killed this week in Gaza. Our whole species fucking sucks.

The one that spooked me was Abdullah the Butcher. He’d come out in a black veil, which his “handler” Gary Hart would remove very cautiously. Then of course, he’d proceed to beat and mangle his opponent while gazing blankly off into the distance.