|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 16, 2019 21:37:23 GMT -5
I am posting this so that there is no doubt about what I am claiming.
McAnswer is a decent person who would never condone harming children in any way, shape, or form.
But the Philosophy of postmodernism would.
Postmodernism claims that there morality is merely what the majority of a society happens to claim is "good." If the society says child rape or husbands beating wives are okay, then they is okay for that society.
My point is if a philosophy like that dominates one's thoughts, then one's moral compass is gone.
I know, Ayn Rand supported the genocide of Native Americans. But as I said many times already, she was totally wrong there and her claim was completely inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy, particularly with her philosophy's basic principle: the Non-Initiation of Violence.
By contrast, Moral Relativism is part of Postmodernism's Foundation.
Rejecting Rand's comments on Native Americans leaves the rest of her philosophy intact.
By contrast, getting rid of Moral Relativism would destroy the very base of Postmodernism.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 12:14:09 GMT -5
Here is what the correct-thinker Ayn Rand said about the murderer William Hickman in her diaries:
Who was Hickman?
Clearly an individual superior to the society that had hated him so much, a victim of the mob's murderous desire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 12:17:30 GMT -5
Some more choice quotes from the correct and good moral philosophy of Ayn Rand: from The Foundainhead
from We The Living
from her Journals
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 12:46:08 GMT -5
I am posting this so that there is no doubt about what I am claiming.
McAnswer is a decent person who would never condone harming children in any way, shape, or form. But the Philosophy of postmodernism would. Postmodernism claims that there morality is merely what the majority of a society happens to claim is "good." If the society says child rape or husbands beating wives are okay, then they is okay for that society. My point is if a philosophy like that dominates one's thoughts, then one's moral compass is gone. I know, Ayn Rand supported the genocide of Native Americans. But as I said many times already, she was totally wrong there and her claim was completely inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy, particularly with her philosophy's basic principle: the Non-Initiation of Violence. By contrast, Moral Relativism is part of Postmodernism's Foundation. Rejecting Rand's comments on Native Americans leaves the rest of her philosophy intact.
By contrast, getting rid of Moral Relativism would destroy the very base of Postmodernism. Bob
"I never accused McAnswer of condoning child rape, but he totally would, because he's a post modernist."
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 17, 2019 14:26:53 GMT -5
Here is what the correct-thinker Ayn Rand said about the murderer William Hickman in her diaries: Who was Hickman?
Clearly an individual superior to the society that had hated him so much, a victim of the mob's murderous desire.
Where did Rand say that what Hickman did was good?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 17, 2019 14:29:02 GMT -5
Some more choice quotes from the correct and good moral philosophy of Ayn Rand: from The Foundainhead
from We The Living
from her Journals
Could you please give the exact reference information so that I can make sure you are not quoting out of context? Thank you.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 17, 2019 14:42:52 GMT -5
I am posting this so that there is no doubt about what I am claiming.
McAnswer is a decent person who would never condone harming children in any way, shape, or form. But the Philosophy of postmodernism would. Postmodernism claims that there morality is merely what the majority of a society happens to claim is "good." If the society says child rape or husbands beating wives are okay, then they is okay for that society. My point is if a philosophy like that dominates one's thoughts, then one's moral compass is gone. I know, Ayn Rand supported the genocide of Native Americans. But as I said many times already, she was totally wrong there and her claim was completely inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy, particularly with her philosophy's basic principle: the Non-Initiation of Violence. By contrast, Moral Relativism is part of Postmodernism's Foundation. Rejecting Rand's comments on Native Americans leaves the rest of her philosophy intact.
By contrast, getting rid of Moral Relativism would destroy the very base of Postmodernism. Bob
"I never accused McAnswer of condoning child rape, but he totally would, because he's a post modernist."
You changed my wording so it's no longer my quote.
What I did say is: "McAnswer is a decent person who would never condone harming children in any way, shape, or form.
But the Philosophy of postmodernism would."
This is 100% true.
According to Postmodernist "principles", there is no absolute moral principle that is valid for all societies. Some societies abhor child rape. Other societies permit it. In those societies that permit child rape, it is okay and there is no way to say that they are wrong.
The claim that there is no Ethics that holds for all societies in all times is a basic foundational principle of Postmodernism. Get rid of it and you also get rid of Postmodern "ethics."
Eventually McAnswer, you will have to make a choice: get rid of your belief that child rape is always evil, or get rid of your belief in Postmodernism.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 18:32:49 GMT -5
LOL more bullshit from the bullshitter.
Is this another one of your "lessons" where it turns out that you were lying the whole time, or are you really such a scummy lowlife?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 17, 2019 19:52:45 GMT -5
LOL more bullshit from the bullshitter. Is this another one of your "lessons" where it turns out that you were lying the whole time, or are you really such a scummy lowlife?
More Ad Hominems? Did you run out of facts again?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 11:40:31 GMT -5
Here's a fact for you: You have not been able to find a single postmodernist who embraces child rape.
I, on the other hand, have found the founder of Randianism endorsing child rape and genocide.
Apparently, this leads to the conclusion that postmodernism is evil-wrong, and Randianism is good-correct.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 18, 2019 13:47:50 GMT -5
Here's a fact for you: You have not been able to find a single postmodernist who embraces child rape. I, on the other hand, have found the founder of Randianism endorsing child rape and genocide. Apparently, this leads to the conclusion that postmodernism is evil-wrong, and Randianism is good-correct.
The fact is that Postmodernists cannot say that child rape is wrong. If there is a society that practices child rape, a Postmodernist would just conclude that child rape is "moral" for that particular society.
A couple of years ago, there was a case of a German judge who dismissed charges against a man for beating his wife on the grounds that wife-beating was "normal" for the society they came from. Remember that? I posted it here on this forum and you responded. That judge's comments are Postmodernism in action.
As far as Rand goes, those claims of hers were aberrations that were contradicted by the rest of her writings.
If that is going to be your standard of accepting or rejecting a philosopher's entire body of work, remember that just about all philosophers before the 20th century were racists and religious bigots.
Several, including Kant wrote about the glories of War.
Are you claiming that we should reject all philosophers who wrote before the 20th century because they were racists, bigots and warmongers?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 18, 2019 14:12:19 GMT -5
Bob,
Just so you know --
I had this very argument with him a year or so in regard to the Muslims. He would not denounce their child marriage practices or predisposition toward pedophilia. The question becomes if refusal to denounce this practice in a culture is tacit approval thereof.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 19, 2019 22:17:27 GMT -5
Bob, Just so you know -- I had this very argument with him a year or so in regard to the Muslims. He would not denounce their child marriage practices or predisposition toward pedophilia. The question becomes if refusal to denounce this practice in a culture is tacit approval thereof. --Debutante
Postmodernists cannot denounce pedophilia, child marriages, wife beating, or any crime as long as these exist in a culture where such things are accepted as the norm.
"According to Adam Phillips, “Universal moral principles must be eradicated and reverence for individual and cultural uniqueness inculcated.”1 Zygmunt Bauman continues, “I suggest that the novelty of the postmodern approach to ethics consists first and foremost in...the rejection of the typically modern ways of going about its moral problems (that is...the philosophical search for absolutes, universals and foundations in theory).”2...
Postmodern psychiatrist Adam Phillips insists any ethical boundaries are “a form of pontification and imperial self-aggrandizement....No adult can know what’s best for another adult; and, by the same token, no group or society can know what’s best for another group or society.”12 Phillips’ stance seems more in keeping with the overall Postmodern mindset, which does not allow anyone to be “right” on any particular issue, including ethics."
Bob
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 19, 2019 23:34:33 GMT -5
Bob,
That puts me in mind of a line in an old Jefferson Airplane song:
"You call it rain, but the human name doesn't mean shit to a tree."
I think the same concept is in operation here. If some toothless old gomer is about to crawl into bed to deflower his six year old victim -- I think we can pretty well dispense with philosophy because it doesn't mean shit to the child. Why on earth should it?
Sometimes things have to be distilled to basics. In no way, shape, or form, no way, no how, is anyone going to convince me that a little child wants to be defiled.
Attempting to "prettify" child rape by wrapping it up in some intellectual gobbledygook doesn't change the fact that when distilled down to basics -- all the words mean "shit".
All that really matters is the child. So no, I don't accept "postmodernism" as an excuse for not denouncing what is clearly an assault upon innocence. And no one else should allow this as an excuse either.
That's the thing -- just who made the rule up that we have to accept this excuse because they believe it gives them a free pass? Like hell!
Either you are for protecting children from harm or you are with those who exploit them. There is no middle ground.
-- Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 0:32:42 GMT -5
Here's a fact for you: You have not been able to find a single postmodernist who embraces child rape. I, on the other hand, have found the founder of Randianism endorsing child rape and genocide. Apparently, this leads to the conclusion that postmodernism is evil-wrong, and Randianism is good-correct. The fact is that Postmodernists cannot say that child rape is wrong. If there is a society that practices child rape, a Postmodernist would just conclude that child rape is "moral" for that particular society.
No, that's not a fact; that is an unsupported claim that you invented, based on a total lack of understanding of the subject you are talking about. You have not read a single post modernist work, and your sole source of information is your fellow Randian cultist Stephen Hicks, a self-appointed expert on "postmodernism" who couldn't even get his own books through the peer review process of a humanities department because he failed to clear even the very low bar in that particular academic field.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 20, 2019 11:28:15 GMT -5
The fact is that Postmodernists cannot say that child rape is wrong. If there is a society that practices child rape, a Postmodernist would just conclude that child rape is "moral" for that particular society.
No, that's not a fact; that is an unsupported claim that you invented, based on a total lack of understanding of the subject you are talking about. You have not read a single post modernist work, and your sole source of information is your fellow Randian cultist Stephen Hicks, a self-appointed expert on "postmodernism" who couldn't even get his own books through the peer review process of a humanities department because he failed to clear even the very low bar in that particular academic field.
Unsupported? I also got information from the Stamford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Are you claiming that they are also "cultists" whose work is not peer reviewed?
Do you deny that a main tenet of postmodernism is that there is no privileged narrative? In ethics, that means different groups of people can have totally different codes of acceptable behavior. And that there is no way it can be determined that one ethical code it better than another.
This is what the Stamford Encyclopedia says about Lyotard, who coined the term "Postmodernism."
"As Lyotard argues, aesthetic judgment is the appropriate model for the problem of justice in postmodern experience because we are confronted with a plurality of games and rules without a concept under which to unify them."
So unless you are prepared to argue that the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is wrong, or a "cult", or not peer reviewed, you don't have a case.
There is one other way you can refute what I say. All you have to do is show that Postmodernist philosophers DO claim that there are privileged narratives in Ethics. Is that your claim?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 15:06:36 GMT -5
No, that's not a fact; that is an unsupported claim that you invented, based on a total lack of understanding of the subject you are talking about. You have not read a single post modernist work, and your sole source of information is your fellow Randian cultist Stephen Hicks, a self-appointed expert on "postmodernism" who couldn't even get his own books through the peer review process of a humanities department because he failed to clear even the very low bar in that particular academic field.
Unsupported? I also got information from the Stamford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Are you claiming that they are also "cultists" whose work is not peer reviewed?
Do you deny that a main tenet of postmodernism is that there is no privileged narrative? In ethics, that means different groups of people can have totally different codes of acceptable behavior. Please provide supporting evidence for that claim. Please show me where the encyclopedia says that "if there is a society that practices child rape, a Postmodernist would just conclude that child rape is "moral" for that particular society." Spoiler warning: You can't, because such a claim doesn't exist.
It's a fabrication by you, based on nothing but your fevered imagination.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 20, 2019 17:24:12 GMT -5
Unsupported? I also got information from the Stamford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Are you claiming that they are also "cultists" whose work is not peer reviewed? Do you deny that a main tenet of postmodernism is that there is no privileged narrative? In ethics, that means different groups of people can have totally different codes of acceptable behavior. Please provide supporting evidence for that claim. What "claim?" I asked a question. A question is not a claim.Do you have an answer for that question? Do you deny that a main tenet of postmodernism is that there is no privileged narrative?Please show me where the encyclopedia says that "if there is a society that practices child rape, a Postmodernist would just conclude that child rape is "moral" for that particular society." Spoiler warning: You can't, because such a claim doesn't exist. It's a fabrication by you, based on nothing but your fevered imagination[/quote] Did you really get a degree in Philosophy and Media? From the Postmodernist claim that there are NO PRIVILEGED NARRATIVES, it logically follows that there is no Universal Ethics. That's a logical deduction from a given fact. Your only recourse is to deny that Postmodernists claim there are no privileged ethical codes. Do you deny that? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 12:07:07 GMT -5
Please provide supporting evidence for that claim. What "claim?" I asked a question. A question is not a claim.Do you have an answer for that question? You asked a complex question containing the implied premise: " 'there is no privileged narrative' [...] means different groups of people can have totally different codes of acceptable behavior" which you have not demonstrated to be correct nor even supported with evidence. I deny that postmodern ethics say that child rape is okay, which is the actual claim under discussion here. Again, you show no supporting evidence for your claim. You are simply asserting that your unproven, unsupported personal opinion is "logical". You are doing the philosophical equivalent of jumping up and down and yelling "I'm right! I'm right!" like a little child.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 21, 2019 12:57:08 GMT -5
What "claim?" I asked a question. A question is not a claim.Do you have an answer for that question? You asked a complex question containing the implied premise: " 'there is no privileged narrative' [...] means different groups of people can have totally different codes of acceptable behavior" which you have not demonstrated to be correct nor even supported with evidence. I didn't ask a Complex Question. I asked a simple question. A Complex Question assumes facts that are not in evidence. This question doesn't: Do you deny that a main tenet of postmodernism is that there is no privileged narrative?It's a simple question. Why are you avoiding giving a simple answer? So you are saying that if there is a culture in which child rape and wife-beating are "okay", Postmodernists would denounce that particular part of this culture as being unethical? Is that what you are saying? It is logical, and you have presented no evidence at all that it isn't. All you have to do is provide some evidence that I have somehow violated the rules of logic. Tell us McAnswer, exactly what error in logic have I made? No I'm not. You made that up. If there are no privileged narratives, then it follows that no one ethical principle can be said to be correct for all societies. So a society where child rape is considered okay is just as good as a society where child rape is not okay. If there are no Universal Narratives, then there is no reason to prefer one society's ethics over anthers. No "jumping up and down" here. Just simple logic. So you cannot simultaneously maintain that you are totally against child rape and wife beating in all societies and that you are also a Postmodernist. One of them has to go. Which one is it? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 19:44:06 GMT -5
It is logical, and you have presented no evidence at all that it isn't. QED
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 21, 2019 20:51:13 GMT -5
It is logical, and you have presented no evidence at all that it isn't. QED
If my argument is not logical, then you should have no trouble at all pointing out the mistake in logic. So far you haven't.
Since Postmodernism claims there are no meta-narratives, then there is no way to claim that a society which condones child rape and wife beating is wrong in its beliefs.
Hence for that society according to Postmodernism, child rape and wife-beating are "moral" and there are no grounds to condemn them because they are "values" that the majority of that society agrees with.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 23:25:47 GMT -5
If my argument is not logical, then you should have no trouble at all pointing out the mistake in logic. So far you haven't. "Logic" is not something you can just assert. It's not an intrinsic trait of a person's thoughts, and it doesn't mean "I'm right" either. If you actually cared about your arguments being logical in the first place you would take care to show your hand and demonstrate how and why your argument is logical. And even then your claims would not necessarily be correct, because logical consistency is not the same thing as facticity.You can assert your bullshit claims all day long but that won't make them logically sound nor factually correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 23:33:28 GMT -5
By the way, you still haven't supplied any evidence that postmodern philosophers are okay with child rape. Is there any such evidence forthcoming or are you going to drop that claim?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 22, 2019 1:36:35 GMT -5
If my argument is not logical, then you should have no trouble at all pointing out the mistake in logic. So far you haven't. "Logic" is not something you can just assert. It's not an intrinsic trait of a person's thoughts, and it doesn't mean "I'm right" either. If you actually cared about your arguments being logical in the first place you would take care to show your hand and demonstrate how and why your argument is logical. And even then your claims would not necessarily be correct, because logical consistency is not the same thing as facticity.You can assert your bullshit claims all day long but that won't make them logically sound nor factually correct.
I did demonstrate my argument was logical. It is now your job to actually demonstrate that it was illogical.
This you have not done. All you have presented are unsupported claims. Where are your actual arguments?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 22, 2019 1:43:47 GMT -5
By the way, you still haven't supplied any evidence that postmodern philosophers are okay with child rape. Is there any such evidence forthcoming or are you going to drop that claim?
Anyone who believes there are no Universal Moral Principles (as the Postmodernists claim) must believe that if a society sanctions child rape or wife beating, that this must mean child rape and wife beating are "moral" for that particular society.
REMEMBER THIS?
"German judge invokes Qur'an to deny abused wife a divorce · National outcry at use of sharia law in civil court · Husband beat woman and made death threats
A German judge who refused a Moroccan woman a fast-track divorce on the grounds that domestic violence was acceptable according to the Qur'an has been removed from the case following a nationwide outcry. The judge, Christa Datz-Winter, said the German woman of Moroccan descent would not be granted a divorce because she and her husband came from a "Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife," according to a statement she wrote that was issued by a Frankfurt court. "That's what the claimant had to reckon with when she married the defendant."
The 26-year-old mother of two had been repeatedly beaten and threatened with death by her husband.
When the woman protested against the judge's decision, Ms Datz-Winter invoked the Qur'an to support her argument. In the court she read from verse 34 of Sura four of the Qur'an, An-Nisa (Women), in which men are told to hit their wives as a final stage in dealing with disobedience. The verse reads: "... as to those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping places and beat them"."
That's Postmodernist Principles in action.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 9:20:25 GMT -5
The article doesn't call this German judge a postmodern philosopher, or even mentions postmodern philosophy at all.
Try again?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 22, 2019 11:38:47 GMT -5
The article doesn't call this German judge a postmodern philosopher, or even mentions postmodern philosophy at all. Try again?
But the article does report that the judge was giving a Postmodernist reason for her verdict: The couple was from a country whose dominant culture permitted wife-beating.
The verdict therefore was in perfect accord with Postmodernist principles. Actions are only good or bad depending on the society we happen to live in.
I notice you didn't deny that the husband's wife-beating was wrong.
Why not?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 15:18:42 GMT -5
The article doesn't call this German judge a postmodern philosopher, or even mentions postmodern philosophy at all. Try again? But the article does report that the judge was giving a Postmodernist reason for her verdict: At no point does the article call any of the reasons "postmodernist". That's your invention. Do you have any actual evidence that post modern philosophers are okay with child rape?
Perhaps one featuring actual post modern philosophy?
Or does this all come down to your obsessive jumping to conclusions based on "evidence" that doesn't actually support what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 22, 2019 21:17:03 GMT -5
But the article does report that the judge was giving a Postmodernist reason for her verdict: At no point does the article call any of the reasons "postmodernist". That's your invention. LOL! The article didn't have to call the judge's verdict Postmodernist. The reasons the judge gave for throwing out the wife-beating charges against the husband were clearly Postmodernist. " The judge, Christa Datz-Winter, said the German woman of Moroccan descent would not be granted a divorce because she and her husband came from a "Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife," according to a statement she wrote that was issued by a Frankfurt court." Different cultures mean different moral codes. Now that's Postmodernism. I also notice that you still didn't condemn the judge's verdict that supported wife-beating. I guess you Postmodernists have to stick together. Oh I'm sure they are all against child rape...in Western countries. But how can they possibly condemn child rape in a country where the majority support it? They can't do that and still claim to be Postmodernists. How can a Postmodernist possibly say that there is no meta-Ethics, that different societies have different moral codes...and then suddenly say "Oh but child rape and wife-beating are exceptions. Complex Question Fallacy. You have only claimed my evidence doesn't support my argument. You have not demonstrated it at all. And you still haven't condemned that German judge for freeing a wife-beater because he comes from a different culture where wife beating is not considered immoral. Bob
|
|