The anti-Christian Morality of Ethics

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, I reply to his posts on a message board! I'm a monster. Thanks for stepping in when amicus told me to choke on my own vomit.



That's probably because you don't bother reading anything that falls outside of the ten millimeters of the universe that happen to align with your fucked up world view, because I most certainly have. Maybe you also missed that I'M the one who alluded to how annoying he is in this very fucking thread?? Cuz it JUST happened. Shall I draw you a diagram?

It would also explain why you failed to respond to the post where I very clearly addressed your non-topic.

Took you no time at all to hop right up on Rob's dick, though! You're very talented.

This is how Democrats engage in honest dialog...



OPhelia seems to occupy the Holder Chair at Lit.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Now, like Throb, she's following me from thread to thread.



What a class act this broad is...

 

[Phelia]

Then go away and pat yourself on the back for another Liberal "Victory" because you were able to get really nasty and mean.

Sehr typisch...

Lol. Did "coward" hurt your feelings? You're right. Perhaps I ought to adopt the moral high ground and respectful language of the conservatives in this thread.

Did I say that fucktardette?

What I said, fucktardette, is that you and your buddies have NO ethical anchor. None at all. Your sitting there arguing anti-religion doesn't change that fact one iota.

You're just rudderless ships in a sea of turmoil. Spouting whatever contemporary bull shit is the 'social justice' du jour.

Just like Jesus would have said it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*yawn*


LadyVer with an extended vocabulary, most of it demeaning and patronizing. Typical Libtard.

 

[Phelia]

Now, like Throb, she's following me from thread to thread.



What a class act this broad is...

Ah, I've seen this before. When you lack the mental faculties to respond TO someone, you just start posting ABOUT them until backup arrives or the other person realizes it would be more productive to try and teach calculus to a tree.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go over integration by parts with a douglas fir.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I responded to you and was met with the Alinsky tactic of patronizing ridicule.

You are not about to address anything I actually say because you are too vested in a faux sense of superiority.



Like so many of our Liberal friends here, you have this running dialog shouting in your head that precludes any hope of a rational and polite discourse with you...



... you read and the rabid running radical revolutionary dog of your internal dialog screams, "Who you gonna believe Phelia? Me or the sounds coming from your lying moving lips???"

 

[anchoredinocean]

Poor poor victimized AJ. Put in his place again and he runs for the ignore button.

 

[about_average]

Even if you made up your own, and millions do, it would still be a human based system. Much of our law is nothing more than a codified system of ethics.

Duh. I didn't say otherwise.

I was talking about what I'm observing in this thread:

Ancient human 1 develops religion (belief system) A
Ancient human 2 develops religion (belief system) B
Ancient human 3 develops religion (belief system) C
etc
Many of these are all valid.

Present day human develops and lives by belief system Z
Not valid because it's not based on A, B , C or....
And it's especially bad because it's not based on C which, as we all know, is the best of the lot.

Why are A, B, C, etc valid and Z isn't? Age? Number of adherents? Because it's written down and formalized?

That ethics is anti-Christianity is something that could only be claimed by a christian.
That a person's expressed desire to not date a bigot is a political statement is something that could only be claimed by an idiot.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You and Phelia pretty much bring about every point made on page one.



We have a lot of old threads about deal-breakers in dating. I know that homophobia is not a normal response for a fact based on those types of threads. I know that you guys are rallying to the cause and will use any argument and any attack in order to demean and diminish, but in doing so, you enforce the remarks by the second author about his (and my) former colleagues.

Furthermore, I do not think that you particularly want to have an open and honest discussion about considering yourself to be a Libertarian because it would either A) force you to take up positions that I actually hold and make you a similar target for the likes of Phelia and Throb, or B) out you as a true Liberal.

You both seem to be True Believers (Hoffer) with closed minds. I'm actually the one with an open mind willing to read that which I disagree with for it is the only true way to take apart your opponent's arguments as opposed to the way you two try to do it. It was in the examination of the opposition's writings that I discovered that I really could not defends Liberalism and that I was the real idiot, not the people I disagreed with. When someone wants to have an actual, polite discussion, take rosco, for example, I read what he offers and then express what I think about it without demeaning him or the source, but pointing out usually the economic or social fallacy of the point being made.

I have been polite with you, I challenge to continue to rise to the occasion.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Poor poor victimized AJ. Put in his place again and he runs for the ignore button.

If I do, you'll be the next one on it; not the people who actually help me make my points by behaving is such a predictable manner.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Now, like Throb, she's following me from thread to thread.



What a class act this broad is...

Don't dish it out if you can't take it, Chief.

This isn't Israel. Actions have consequences here.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

^^^^^

On cue, case in point.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If I do, you'll be the next one on it; not the people who actually help me make my points by behaving is such a predictable manner.

Life would be soooo much easier for you if folks would simply stop disagreein' with you, amiright?

The original cut-and-paste that you're hiding behind chided someone for using a potential dating partners homophobia as a deal-breaker.

Not too many people embrace homophobia in this day and age, you and your immediate circle of friends notwithstanding. This seems to upset you a great deal.

 

[RobDownSouth]

^^^^^

On cue, case in point.

You call me out by name, then squeal when I have the temerity to respond.

Actions have consequences here, Chief. This isn't Israel.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

^^^^^^

See page 1...

9) Selective Outrage

1) Hate.





Maybe, it's who they really are and have been all along.
A_J, the Wiser

 

[about_average]

We have a lot of old threads about deal-breakers in dating. I know that homophobia is not a normal response for a fact based on those types of threads.

Oh? So how many people listed rapist-murderer as a deal breaker?
How many deal breakers were the same from poster to poster?

 

[amicus]

Get that?

In 2009, Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford demonstrated that poor, white Christians are underrepresented on elite college campuses. Leftists add insult to injury. A blue-collar white kid, who feels lost and friendless on the alien terrain of a university campus, a campus he has to leave immediately after class so he can get to his fulltime job at MacDonald's, must accept that he is a recipient of "white privilege" – if he wants to get good grades in mandatory classes on racism.

Talk about your compartmentalization!

~~~Thanks, 4rest, this pretty much matches my learning curve, but a generation earlier. I am gratified that you, and others, see the sham of leftist Marxism still rampant even today.

I no longer refer to the sources you do, but, as time goes by, try to condense what I learned into terms and concepts others can understand and either appreciate and scream about.

It seems to work...

smiles



ami

 

[amicus]

Do you have one?



It is a subjective valuation. I know what normal is in my community and in much of the region in which I live, but when I have lived in the cities, I saw a whole 'nuther form of normal, a lot of it purely self-destructive as if the hate for, for lack of better words, traditional normal had metastasized into a form of self-loathing.

~~~

That being said... one should address the concept that every word has a well defined and absolute meaning as it describes the human condition.

The concept of, 'good', for example, 'that which is beneficial to life', serves as a general definition subject to, of course, the environment one finds oneself in. That does not make the definition subjective or relative, but acts as a base or foundation upon which to expand the concept into wider conceptual abstractions.

Thus, the definition of normal or normative, must do the same, establish a base or foundation for normative human existence which is absolute and unchanging, but can be expanded to an infinite level as knowledge is gained.

Leftists rail at any attempt to define concepts in absolute terms as their entire point of view on all things is, indeed, subjective and situational, ending with the conclusion that there is no right or wrong and no, 'normal', environment for humanity.

Not defining terms is a trap to avoid.

amicus

 

[1sickbastard]

Christian "morality":
1) Might makes Right
2) Do as I say, not as I do
3) God told me to do it
4) The devil made me do it
5) Women are evil
6) Slavery, murder, infanticide & genocide are okay
7) punish the victim
8) Jesus absolves one of any moral accountability

 

[about_average]

Leftists rail at any attempt to define concepts in absolute terms as their entire point of view on all things is, indeed, subjective and situational, ending with the conclusion that there is no right or wrong and no, 'normal', environment for humanity.

Wow, my eyes have been opened. I'm a leftist.
I think it's wrong to walk out front and shoot the guy walking down the street, but think it's right to shoot him when he breaks in my house and attacks my family.
Yep, situational right and wrong makes me a leftist.

 

[cjh]

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

http://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

 

[RobDownSouth]

http://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

Hayek was a pip!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh? So how many people listed rapist-murderer as a deal breaker?
How many deal breakers were the same from poster to poster?

Let's go back and revisit the OP...



A University PhD asks a University undergrad a question and she has to pause and think.

Why does she pause, think and then come up with an answer like she did?

The self-censorship of liberal political correctness. She simply imposed upon herself, the same censorship that she would impose on others and, since she was addressing a PhD, she tried to garner favor by sifting through the mantras and causes of the day to come up with an answer that would please and keep her firmly within the consensus and keep her on her career track, because we have ample evidence of what the Liberals will do to anyone who goes outside of their consensus. It was not a normal answer, it was not a normative answer, it was an answer crafted and designed by the University-Government [Industrial] Complex.

(I know you recognize that, it was also a part of Ike's speech of warning, but the Left choses to focus on defense...

*snicker*

I wonder why that is?)

This is the same type of censorship that caused several students of WWII to remark on how Hitler was able to gain power (e.g., Hayek; Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, because eventually a Socialist Consensus sans any serious based ethical morality becomes timid and no one is willing to voice an opinion or give and answer (Rand, We, The Living) for fear that they will lose their access to a quickly diminishing economic pie.

That dwindling pie is what we have now, and we will see the ruling class increasingly resort to purges and fear of honestly stating what they think.

She could have said anything, farts, cheapness, lack of a sense of humor, etc., but she went for a political statement designed to cover her basis and keep her securely within the relative (and fleeting) current morality of the consensus.

Those types of morality often lead to genocides.

Who wants to be next?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let's go back and revisit the OP...



A University PhD asks a University undergrad a question and she has to pause and think.

Why does she pause, think and then come up with an answer like she did?

There we have it, folks:

Thinking before answering is BAD!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

~~~

That being said... one should address the concept that every word has a well defined and absolute meaning as it describes the human condition.

The concept of, 'good', for example, 'that which is beneficial to life', serves as a general definition subject to, of course, the environment one finds oneself in. That does not make the definition subjective or relative, but acts as a base or foundation upon which to expand the concept into wider conceptual abstractions.

Thus, the definition of normal or normative, must do the same, establish a base or foundation for normative human existence which is absolute and unchanging, but can be expanded to an infinite level as knowledge is gained.

Leftists rail at any attempt to define concepts in absolute terms as their entire point of view on all things is, indeed, subjective and situational, ending with the conclusion that there is no right or wrong and no, 'normal', environment for humanity.

Not defining terms is a trap to avoid.

amicus

Normal might have become Politically Correct in a nation that was founded specifically to protect the speech of the politically incorrect, which has now been for some time under the purview of "Hate" speech.



With a label like that, who wouldn't want it outlawed?