Did The Tuck get Cucked here?

[Greoric]

I can meet you here.

Why would you meet him there? Why would avoiding violence be preferable?

 

[WiolentOne]

You just keep reiterating the same failed argument.

People creating and adopting and enforcing rules of behavior throughout human history is not evidence of the existence of one true and perfect set of moral laws.

Anymore than people worshiping various gods throughout history is evidence of the existence of one true and perfect God.

How is this not obvious to you?

This is really a bad false comparison.

The former is an observation of a particular pattern/process - a common moral theme identified across cultures i.e. the golden rule.

The latter is an observation of common themes of religion - NOT observation of the existence of a god.

Process vs product.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Why would you meet him there? Why would avoiding violence be preferable?

Neither the idea of killing nor being killed appeals to me at the moment.

Ask me again tomorrow.

 

[ultramanhyata]

This is really a bad false comparison.

The former is an observation of a particular pattern/process - a common moral theme identified across cultures i.e. the golden rule.

The latter is an observation of common themes of religion - NOT observation of the existence of a god.

Process vs product.

You're just teasing out elements of the comparison that have nothing to do with the focal point of the comparison.

Do you or do you not support the assertion that people creating and adopting and enforcing rules of behavior throughout human history is evidence of the existence of one true and perfect set of moral laws?

 

[Greoric]

You're just teasing out elements of the comparison that have nothing to do with the focal point of the comparison.

Do you or do you not support the assertion that people creating and adopting and enforcing rules of behavior throughout human history is evidence of the existence of one true and perfect set of moral laws?

Yes, because it demonstrates that there are rule sets for human behavior that produce varying outcomes with regard to behavioral preference....

Look dude, All you've done is reduced yourself to an absurdity because you can't support your position that a majority has a moral authority in and of itself so you retreat to nonsense... even though you demonstrably don't believe what you're writing (per the thousands of posts, including ones in this thread, you've made over the years that demonstrated your value judgements for how society should be organized).

 

[WiolentOne]

You're just teasing out elements of the comparison that have nothing to do with the focal point of the comparison.

You tried to compare the observation and identification of a pattern/process to the existence of god in an attempt to undermine the former. An extreme example of your false comparison would be like discounting Darwin's observational work in the Gallapagos - at a time when the other sciences could not yet produce empirical evidence in support - and comparing it to the belief in the existience of god because you observed religion.

Do you or do you not support the assertion that people creating and adopting and enforcing rules of behavior throughout human history is evidence of the existence of one true and perfect set of moral laws?

I believe there is evidence to support the notion of a pancultural process to morality i.e the golden rule. I know that the faciltiies from which we derive morality are biologically innate and universal to humans.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah I realize you like to rationalize it away like that, but I guess that answers my other question. You've never considered you're the problem.

There's plenty of people on here that are able to handle dissonance. Its just amusing that you think its anyone that doesn't call you dishonest.

I don't see any problem at all. A handful of lunatics get mad at me. That's to be expected when you have hundreds of people reading controversial views. And you've never been able to cite a single example of dishonesty from me, while you just have two new examples of your own dishonesty in this thread, right? Your whole intention of trying to make this about me is to deflect from that and from the weakness of your argument (you badly misstated the argument for democratic gov't).

 

[DannyNL]

You can't cuck the Tuck. Jon Stewart cucked the Tuck many years ago but now he is Uncuckable.

 

[cincymma79]

The first part isn't even a factual statement. We don't have a representative democracy, and even if we did that still wouldn't be policy decided on by majority rule.

In any event though, there's plenty of people on here that subscribe to the majority rule is moral philospohy. @m52nickerson is one. In this thread alone, it looks like @cincymma79 is another.

Great. So let's see how far your view extends. Racists disagree black people should vote. He congressman they didn't vote for backs their rights. Can they now shoot him?

 

[USA!USA!]

I don't know anything about tucker other than I hate his face. It's a very punch able face. And he looks like he has no teeth. I cannot support him. Weird, toothless punch-face fucker.

Dude definitely has a punchable face and haircut, but I find him entertaining, personally. Sometimes he loses his ambushes, sometimes he wins.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

You just keep reiterating the same failed argument.

People creating and adopting and enforcing rules of behavior throughout human history is not evidence of the existence of one true and perfect set of moral laws.

Anymore than people worshiping various gods throughout history is evidence of the existence of one true and perfect God.

How is this not obvious to you?

The potential validity of your point aside, this is a stupid comparison and argument.
How is this not obvious to you?

 

[weed]

I explained why go back and look.

yeah but that explanation is a pure mistake on your behalf. did you not read even read the post where I explained this?

 

[Sir Galahad]

yeah but that explanation is a pure mistake on your behalf. did you not read even read the post where I explained this?

Okay Tucker had a bad day. Let's move on. See you in the Berry.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I explained why go back and look.

No you didn't, you simply avoided the guy's point just like Tuck the Cuck.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The potential validity of your point aside, this is a stupid comparison and argument.
How is this not obvious to you?

Ultra is obviously right, but I don't think he's addressing the real weakness of Greoric's argument, and that's where the comparison is instructive but irrelevant. When it comes to property ownership and distributive justice generally, there's no way to stay neutral--you can't be an atheist, a non-practicer, or even a supporter of "freedom of religion." If you say you want no rules at all, you're still actively supporting communism. That makes gov't fundamentally different from religion.

People will always disagree about what good governance is so there has to be some way to resolve it. A democratic gov't where people are free to exercise reason and to try to persuade others is the way that humans have found works best.

 

[kpt018]

@Jack V Savage, legitimate question for you.

Doesn't it ever cross your mind to ask, maybe its you? With all the recursive examples of people telling you exactly the same thing about your dishonesty, your projections, and your strawmen, doesn't it ever cross your mind that maybe you're the problem?

Edit: Speaking of the devil... look at the following post.

I wonder if there are some common attributes Jack's forum opponents share.....

 

[ultramanhyata]

Yes, because it demonstrates that there are rule sets for human behavior that produce varying outcomes with regard to behavioral preference....

A meaningless statement. Does absolutely nothing to advance your assertion. Who disagrees with this?

Look dude, All you've done is reduced yourself to an absurdity because you can't support your position that a majority has a moral authority in and of itself so you retreat to nonsense...

When did I ever assert this?? You just try to pick the fight you've been indoctrinated to combat even if your opponent is coming at the argument from an entirely different angle.

Because you don't actually understand your own position well enough to mold it into the debate with which you have been engaged. You just mechanically regurgitate the talking points you've heard elsewhere.

even though you demonstrably don't believe what you're writing (per the thousands of posts, including ones in this thread, you've made over the years that demonstrated your value judgements for how society should be organized).

So here you are, still beating that dead horse. The only attempt at a defense you have offered in this whole discussion is a complete non sequitur.

 

[kpt018]

Yes. An ethical standard exists beyond whether any number of people agree to it. Only shallow thinkers believe a majority confers any kind of moral authority on its own.

What's the ethical standard?

 

[Casrot]

This guy fucked Tucker Carlson's wife on his own show?

<{dayum}>

 

[Greoric]

I wonder if there are some common attributes Jack's forum opponents share.....

Red herring. Doesn't take away that Jack is a mental midget that lacks the aptitude for introspection, as demonstrated here.

What's the ethical standard?

Whatever it is, it isn't the majority rule.