Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 7:38:09 GMT -5
Different cultures mean different moral codes. Now that's Postmodernism. And as usual, you provide no evidence for your claim. I also notice that you still haven't condemned your government's concentration camps which I guess means that much like your idol Ayn Rand you support child rape and child murder. And once again, no evidence for any of these claims. You have not shown that being against child rape would be an "exception". I don't need to demonstrate the nonexistence of something that does not exist. There is no evidence for your argument, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 23, 2019 12:36:20 GMT -5
Different cultures mean different moral codes. Now that's Postmodernism. And as usual, you provide no evidence for your claim. But I did provide evidence from the judge's own statement. You probably missed it. Here it is again: "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."" Circumstantial Ad Hominem. I do condemn Concentration Camps wherever they exist. Including America and Austria. But you still haven't condemned the German judge's support of wife-beating. Why not? Oh yes, there is evidence. The evidence is your silence, your continued refusal to condemn child rape in any and all cultures! Your silence implies that you think child rape is okay if the majority of a country approves. However you can disprove that by simply issuing a total condemnation of child rape as totally wrong and evil no matter what a majority happens to believe. Why do you refuse to do that? EXACTLY THE POINT! According to Postmodernism, there are no exceptions to the dogma that there are no universal ethical rules. Therefore if a culture recognizes child rape as valid, then child rape is okay for that culture. You have a clear choice here McAnswer. Stick with your claim that there are no ethical principles valid for all cultures. In that case, you will have to conclude that a culture that permits child rape is okay for that culture. Or give up the Postmodernist fantasy that there are no universal moral principles. Which is it? Fine. Since you deny that there is any evidence, then your postmodernist principles are correct and you support the claim that child rape is okay if a majority says it's okay. At least we cleared that up. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 12:07:36 GMT -5
And as usual, you provide no evidence for your claim. But I did provide evidence from the judge's own statement. Which is irrelevant to your argument that post modern philosophers support child rape. Your response to my last post on the topic was not condemnation at all, in fact you insinuated that it was the children's own fault. So it very much seems like you are full of shit here. Ad hominem.
Do you have evidence for your claim that post modernists support child rape?
If so, please present it here. Otherwise your argument is baseless. Please show me where I have refused to condemn child rape.
Non sequitur. Also, you still haven't shown that post modern philosophers actually believed "that there are no universal ethical rules". Is that because you haven't actually read anything but Hicks' book on postmodernism, and are therefore completely clueless as to where to find any such hypothetical evidence?
Or is there another reason why you haven't been able to produce a direct quote by any post modern philosopher on the subject?
I can be a post modernist and tell you that child rape is always bad, and there is nothing that prevents me from saying so. By the way, do you think concentration camps are always bad? What about forcible deportation? What about seizing people's property? Are these universally bad, or are they necessary in certain circumstances?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 12:41:26 GMT -5
Speaking of cultures that condone child rape:Christians and Jews believe in the universal truth of their own faith, and the universal applicability of their own religious ethics. Nevertheless, they condoned, and engaged in, child rape. Therefore, a belief in universal truths leads to child rape.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 12:48:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 24, 2019 13:10:14 GMT -5
Speaking of cultures that condone child rape:Christians and Jews believe in the universal truth of their own faith, and the universal applicability of their own religious ethics. Nevertheless, they condoned, and engaged in, child rape. Therefore, a belief in universal truths leads to child rape.
Non Sequitur.
From the fact that they believed in Universal Truth in general does not mean they believed the evil of child rape to be one of those rules.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 24, 2019 13:13:14 GMT -5
Really? Where? The 15 year-old is obviously blameless here. But the 25 year-old woman is still guilty of child rape.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 15:48:02 GMT -5
Speaking of cultures that condone child rape:Christians and Jews believe in the universal truth of their own faith, and the universal applicability of their own religious ethics. Nevertheless, they condoned, and engaged in, child rape. Therefore, a belief in universal truths leads to child rape. Non Sequitur.
From the fact that they believed in Universal Truth in general does not mean they believed the evil of child rape to be one of those rules. Bob
Exactly, they did not see anything wrong with child rape at all based on their ethics, which they considered to be universally true and objectively correct. Once you believe that your moral framework is objectively correct, there is no reason to adapt or change it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 15:50:06 GMT -5
Really? Where? The 15 year-old is obviously blameless here. But the 25 year-old woman is still guilty of child rape. Bob
Not according to libertarians: Age of consent, they argue, is government intrusion into the natural process of maturation, which should be left to individual choice. There is nothing wrong with a kid "choosing" to have sex with an adult according to libertarianism - according to their argument, the child "voluntarily" decided to do so.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 24, 2019 16:38:25 GMT -5
Non Sequitur.
From the fact that they believed in Universal Truth in general does not mean they believed the evil of child rape to be one of those rules. Bob
Exactly, they did not see anything wrong with child rape at all based on their ethics, which they considered to be universally true and objectively correct. Once you believe that your moral framework is objectively correct, there is no reason to adapt or change it.
There are many ethical systems based on Universal Truth and you are conflating them. Not all of these systems are valid.
Religious systems, for example are based on "faith", not on Objective Facts.
Any Ethical System that claims child rape is ever alright is false right from the beginning. So are all systems that claim that child rape can be alright depending on the particular culture's ethical code.
ONLY SOME Universal ethical systems may tolerate child rape. Not all do. And obviously, the ethical systems that do have to be rejected.
ALL Postmodernist and Ethical Relativist ethical systems claim child rape may be permitted if the particular ethics of a culture permits it. Therefore all Postmodern and Relativist ethical systems do not and cannot Universally and totally condemn child rape. Or anything else for that matter.
The only possible way to Universally condemn child rape is with an ethical code that Universally condemns it for all cultures and all times.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 5:02:21 GMT -5
Exactly, they did not see anything wrong with child rape at all based on their ethics, which they considered to be universally true and objectively correct. Once you believe that your moral framework is objectively correct, there is no reason to adapt or change it. There are many ethical systems based on Universal Truth and you are conflating them. Not all of these systems are valid.
You do consider at least one of them valid, despite their believers' support for child rape.
Any Ethical System that claims child rape is ever alright is false right from the beginning. So libertarianism is "false right from the beginning"?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 25, 2019 9:48:42 GMT -5
There are many ethical systems based on Universal Truth and you are conflating them. Not all of these systems are valid. You do consider at least one of them valid, despite their believers' support for child rape. And your evidence for this is...? So you found one person who calls themselves a "Libertarian" who said something stupid? What is your evidence that this person speaks for all Libertarians? None. This person is simply exercising their Freedom of Speech and is speaking for themselves only. By contrast, the postmodernist principle that there are no meta-narratives is fundamental to ALL postmodernists. You cannot claim there are any Universal Ethical Principles that apply to all societies at all times and still be a postmodernist. Therefore ALL postmodernists have to believe that there are societies where child rape and wife-beating are morally permitted. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 11:51:01 GMT -5
You do consider at least one of them valid, despite their believers' support for child rape. And your evidence for this is...? The fact that you call yourself a "libertarian".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 11:51:53 GMT -5
So you found one person who calls themselves a "Libertarian" who said something stupid? I've found several
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 25, 2019 12:13:24 GMT -5
And your evidence for this is...? The fact that you call yourself a "libertarian".
"Libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the ability to pursue one’s own conception of happiness, or the “good life”). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. Historical origins"
I don't see anything there about child rape being permissible. Do you?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 15:45:49 GMT -5
Do you have anything to counter his argument? Please, elaborate how this argument, which as he himself says used to be part of the Libertarian Party's platform until 1994, does not derive from Libertarian principles.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 25, 2019 16:22:16 GMT -5
According to the libertarian I cited, abolishing age of consent (therefore condoning child rape) logically follows from the principles of libertarianism: Do you have anything to counter his argument? Please, elaborate how this argument, which as he himself says used to be part of the Libertarian Party's platform until 1994, does not derive from Libertarian principles. How come you didn't give the link for those quotes? What is the source? And did you notice that at several points, your source says "I believe?" In other words, your source is giving their own personal opinion and is not speaking for anyone else. In fact, even you used "He says" when referring to HIS text. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 18:25:27 GMT -5
According to the libertarian I cited, abolishing age of consent (therefore condoning child rape) logically follows from the principles of libertarianism: Do you have anything to counter his argument? Please, elaborate how this argument, which as he himself says used to be part of the Libertarian Party's platform until 1994, does not derive from Libertarian principles. How come you didn't give the link for those quotes? What is the source? The source is the link I gave. I assumed that you were capable of reading it for yourself, sorry for making such a spurious claim in the heat of the moment, it won't happen again! So when a libertarian says that they believe something, the logical conclusion is to assume that no other libertarian believes the same thing? Is that correct?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 18:30:20 GMT -5
How come that an ideology ostensibly opposed to child rape and genocide produces advocates for both of these things, Bob?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 25, 2019 21:52:42 GMT -5
How come you didn't give the link for those quotes? What is the source? The source is the link I gave. I assumed that you were capable of reading it for yourself, sorry for making such a spurious claim in the heat of the moment, it won't happen again! Congratulations. You found one Libertarian who made one claim all by himself. Do you have any evidence that his views are shared by a majority of other Libertarians? Come to think of it, do you have any evidence that his views are shared by even one other Libertarian? Yes. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
If you meet a Jew who has money and is good in business, do you assume that all Jews have money and are good in business?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 25, 2019 21:57:56 GMT -5
How come that an ideology ostensibly opposed to child rape and genocide produces advocates for both of these things, Bob?
Complex Question Fallacy.
You're assuming without evidence that the ideology did that. All you have so far is the opinion one crazy person who is probably twisting the Libertarian principles to fit his own fantasies. And even he doesn't claim to speak for the entire Libertarian party.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 6:48:04 GMT -5
The source is the link I gave. I assumed that you were capable of reading it for yourself, sorry for making such a spurious claim in the heat of the moment, it won't happen again! Congratulations. You found one Libertarian who made one claim all by himself. Do you have any evidence that his views are shared by a majority of other Libertarians? Come to think of it, do you have any evidence that his views are shared by even one other Libertarian? I have found more libertarians condoning child rape than you have found post modernists. And from the argument laid out by the libertarian source I quoted, we can see that pedophilia is consistent with libertarian dogma. So clearly, libertarianism is an ideology that condones child rape. So we can assume that no other libertarian shares your beliefs, unless you come up with evidence to the contrary?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 26, 2019 13:15:28 GMT -5
Congratulations. You found one Libertarian who made one claim all by himself. Do you have any evidence that his views are shared by a majority of other Libertarians? Come to think of it, do you have any evidence that his views are shared by even one other Libertarian? I have found more libertarians condoning child rape than you have found post modernists. Quite the contrary. How many did you find?One? Two? By contrast, EVERY POSTMODERNIST makes child rape possible because of the very nature of Postmodern Principles. If a Universal Ethics is not possible (and according to Postmodernism, there is no Universal Ethics)then societies where child rape and wife-beating are considered moral must be MORAL because that is what that particular society considers moral. Therefore no Postmodernist can tell a member of that society that they are behaving immorally when they beat their wife or rape a child. This is true for all Postmodernists without exception by the very nature of Postmodern Principles! By contrast, there is no foundational principle in Libertarian thought that MUST BY NECESSITY make child rape or wife-beating possible. Indeed, you haven't even found one example of a Libertarian who condones wife-beating based on Libertarian principles, have you? What "argument" are you talking about? All your source did was make a dogmatic claim with no supporting evidence. Of course not. You are the one making the claim. Therefore it is up to you to provide supporting evidence for your claim. And you still haven't found any Libertarians who support wife-beating. And you won't since it's a clear violation of the Non-Initiation of Violence Principle. Postmodernists by contrast do support wife-beating as long as a majority of the society believes wife-beating is ethical. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 17:30:58 GMT -5
I showed you a quote from a libertarian who supports child rape.
Show me a single quote from a post modern philosopher supporting child rape.
A single one.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 26, 2019 19:18:28 GMT -5
I showed you a quote from a libertarian who supports child rape. Yes. One quote from one person out of several million (there were 4 million votes in 2016 for the Libertarian candidate for president). And it was a white person. Does that mean all white people support child rape? No quotes needed. The foundational premise of Postmodernism is that there are no meta-ethical principles. Any two groups of people could have opposing moral values and there is no way to say which value system is correct.Therefore no consistent Postmodernist can ever claim that child rape or wife-beating is universally wrong.If a particular culture says child rape and wife-beating are okay, then these acts are good and moral for that culture. Of course that is little comfort for all the raped children and beaten wives. Postmodernist philosophers don't have to explicitly say that child rape is permitted. Their philosophy says it for them.Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 4:58:12 GMT -5
So you believe very strongly, and therefore you need no proof. Gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 27, 2019 11:36:48 GMT -5
So you believe very strongly, and therefore you need no proof. Gotcha.
You're apparently describing yourself.
A logical argument based on clear premises is proof.
The Postmodernist premise is that there is no way to distinguish between different moral codes (there is no meta-ethics).
Clearly this means if you have two moral codes and one says child rape is bad while the other says it's good, you have no way to tell which one is right.
The Postmodernist conclusion is that each code is moral for that society.
Therefore Postmodernism condones child rape as long as the majority of the child-raping society says child rape is permitted.
QED
Do you deny this? I have asked you that question many times and you have yet to give a straight answer.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 12:05:47 GMT -5
So you believe very strongly, and therefore you need no proof. Gotcha. You're apparently describing yourself. A logical argument based on clear premises is proof.
1. You have not demonstrated that your premises are based in facts. 2. You have not demonstrated that your argument is, in fact, logical. 3. Logic could only prove whether your argument is logically consistent, not whether it is factually correct.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 27, 2019 12:30:43 GMT -5
You're apparently describing yourself. A logical argument based on clear premises is proof.
1. You have not demonstrated that your premises are based in facts. I did. You now have to prove that they are not. Since you claim my arguments are not based on facts, that should be easy enough for you to do. For instance, I claimed that Postmodernists do not believe there is any Universal Ethics. Do you deny this? Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that it is illogical. Just point out which rule of logic I violated. So you are claiming it is not a fact that Postmodernism does not assert there is no meta-ethics and that a principle like "Child rape and wife beating are wrong and immoral for all societies" is perfectly acceptable to Postmodernists? Good luck proving that one. Bob
|
|