Materialist Reaches New Low

_{Barry Arrington
November 8, 2018

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Barry: Can we know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure?

JDK: “There is no possible answer to the question: it’s a meaningless question.”

UPDATE:

JDK has accused me of being intellectually dishonest for quoting him as saying (1) there is no possible answer to the question; and (2) it is a meaningless question. He has implied that the “context” of his statement makes it mean something other than what it appears to mean on its face.

OK JDK. I’ll bite. Do you believe the question has meaning and it is possible to answer? If so, answer it. If not, apologize for saying the quotation was dishonest.

SECOND UPDATE:

JDK continues to post in the comment thread. I noted that he had posted twice without responding. His response:

A true fact, Barry. This makes three times.

It surprises no one, I am sure, that JDK’s charge of dishonesty was, itself, fundamentally dishonest. What should we expect from someone who claims to be wobbly on the whole baby torture issue?

Comments

BTW, my bad. I did not realize that TBFF was code for abortion. I happen to believe that abortion is murder. I suppose I can connect the dots. Some pregnancies are caused by "having fun". Some are caused by rape. Some abortions are performed to protect the mother. And late-term abortions could cause horrible pain for the aborted child. I don't think they all get "tortured," though. I'm not arguing for abortion. As I said, I believe that an unborn child is a living person and that deliberately terminating it is a form of homicide. All I'm saying is that if TBFF is a an exact 1:1 code referring to abortion then it's a lousy one. First because people literally can't tell what you're talking about. At least call it "torturing unborn babies for fun so people know what you mean. (Except they still might not know what you mean.) Second, you're mixing up subjects. Is your point to argue that abortion is wrong? Argue that. Is your point to argue in favor of objective morality? Argue that using an example that anyone can agree with. (They way I previously understood TBFF I thought that was what you are doing.) But you can't get anywhere if you start trying to establish adjacent but distinct points at the same time, in one discussion. It's just a mess. It only make sense if the objective is to feel superior by calling people names while pretending that it's a rational discussion. That's what this looks like to me. Step back and look at this from the perspective of a first-time visitor. What do they see? It starts as personal attacks within discussions. Then it escalates to threads in which both the titles and the OPs are personal attacks. People escalate when they're angry. Why doesn't that offend anyone? I suspect that it does, and those who are offended back away, leaving mostly those who enjoy it.OldAndrew_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

BA, there are 800+ million cases in point as well as 100+ million victims of nihilist regimes that demonstrate just how sadly relevant the point is. The extremism is in the nihilistic consequences, not in the relevance. We need to pause, listen to the ghosts and think then start again in our pondering of the IS-OUGHT gap, first duties and first principles of right (notice this: right) reason. KF PS: Where I had to bring out these issues in three phases here in the Caribbean: https://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2018/11/no-mr-robinson-and-gleaner-gospel-is.htmlkairosfocus_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

OA
I agree with that. I was referring more to the constant reference to torturing babies, punctuating every other comment with something about how the other guy thinks it’s okay.
OA, you don't seem to understand the argument. No one has ever said "the other guy thinks it's okay." The point is that the other guy cannot ground his statement that it is not okay in anything other than an appeal to his own personal preference. The use of an extreme example is absolutely necessary to counter that. Do you understand why that is the case?Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Sometimes, you do need an emotional reaction. A lot of people either ignore or cannot follow the arguments against abortion.
I agree with that. I was referring more to the constant reference to torturing babies, punctuating every other comment with something about how the other guy thinks it's okay. If the point of this discussion is to reason then the TBFF thing is the worst possible choice because it distracts from reason with emotion. Something less emotional like stealing your neighbor's Amazon packages is a much better choice. SYNAP. Once you start calling people cowards and liars and referring to other people's typed words as "screams" (50) then the pretense of reason has gone out the window.OldAndrew_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Let’s state the key proposition or premise as succinctly as we can: If there are no real and binding interpersonal obligations there is no such thing as morality. If that’s true all you are left with are self-centered or egocentric preferences which are at best amoral and at worst immoral. You do not have a basis for a just society or universal human rights if you begin with egocentrism, amorality or immorality. You certainly cannot have any kind of viable democratic from of government. Conclusion: whatever Jack is arguing for or about, it is not morality. He is therefore either ignorant, deluded or morally incorrigible. Please notice none of those are good. But of course Jack is not going to think that way because according to the subjectivist good or bad are just subjective evaluations or opinions.john_a_designer_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

SM, sadly, precisely correct and backed by a bloody century in which 100+ millions fell victim to regimes ruled by nihilistic dictators serving ideologies driven by radical undermining of objective morality; we can readily calculate that 800+ millions of living posterity in the womb have been killed in the worst holocaust in history over the past 40+ years . . . a global holocaust driven by calculated, massively promoted dehumanisation of the child in the womb. Likewise, if there are no transcendent, objective, binding moral principles, this includes that no-one is bound by duties to truth, right reason, fairness, etc. This immediately ends in self-refutation as the argument being made by relativists and subjectivists crucially depends on our being bound by just such duties. Further, as being so bound is a general perception, we see that these objectors imply grand delusion, corroding the basic credibility of mind. Further yet, that such objectors cannot acknowledge that it is self evidently wrong and evil to torture an innocent child for fun and/or profit shows a monstrous breach of the civil peace of justice which marks such as enemies of civil society; a point that is also indicated by the implication of such views that might and/or manipulation imposes 'truth' 'right' 'rights' 'knowledge' etc. This is patent amorality and opens the door to naked nihilism and the rule of the baying mob on the streets or in the board room, court house or parliament chamber. For, the point of such an example -- it is not hyperbolic, I can cite a definite related case in point that I observed at close hand -- is that the weakest, most voiceless have a right to the protections of the civil peace of justice. So, we need to ponder pointed questions about whether such should be entrusted with power, in all prudence in defence of the civil peace of justice. We could go on but that is enough. KFkairosfocus_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

"If one cannot know anything with certainty then ..." Then one cannot know with certainty that one cannot know anything with certainty. One can suspect, one can believe, but one cannot know. This is the exact same self-referential contradiction that infests all relativism. And because of it, one cannot justify what one believes, which is the dilemma in which JDK is now firmly trapped. He can protest all he likes about how he'd try to persuade the baby-torturing homo-killer that what they're doing isn't very nice, but he's already admitted before the argument starts that he has voluntarily disarmed himself of any rhetorical weapon beyond "It makes me feel icky!" Which is why every relativist has only one weapon, and that is force. They cannot persuade, not by moral suasion since they do no believe in morality, not by rational argument since they do not practice reason, and so all that is left to them is force. They WILL kill you if they feel like you disapprove of their behaviour, long before they disapprove of yours.ScuzzaMan_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

I wanted to respond to jdk to one of the points he brought up regarding Barrys question “To be flippant, it’s like asking whether unicorns are pink. I know what the question means, but since unicorns don’t exist, there is no possible answer to the question: it’s a meaningless question.” Yes jdk there is an answer and the answer is obvious it is NO Regarding knowledge. If one cannot know anything with certainty then one can insert in the place of the word “evil” anything such as funny, or interesting, or profitable etc, etc and the same answer would be the necessary response of NO. Vividvividbleau_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

Old Andrew
In my experience arguments that require hyperbole and extreme hypotheticals just aren’t that good to start with. If you’re appealing to reason you don’t need to provoke an emotional reaction.
Sometimes, you do need an emotional reaction. A lot of people either ignore or cannot follow the arguments against abortion. That is why so many babies are killed. But if you show them the picture of an aborted baby or what's left of it, they are forced to take their head out of the sand. That is also why television networks refuse to show those pictures. They know that if they did, abortions would stop tomorrow - and they don't want abortions to stop. They want to keep killing babies. If you ask JDK what he thinks about all this, we know what his reaction would be: He would say that we can't know that abortion is objectively wrong and, while it might seem wrong to me, it is not necessarily wrong for anyone else. That is the philosophy of subjectivism. It get's people killed. I gather that you cannot get excited about the subject one way or the other and are probably more concerned with my rhetoric than the fact that millions of babies are violently ripped apart or scalded to death because they get in someone's way.StephenB_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

OldAndrew, Do you know what an abortion is? Andrewasauber_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

OldAndrew
In my experience arguments that require hyperbole and extreme hypotheticals just aren’t that good to start with. If you’re appealing to reason you don’t need to provoke an emotional reaction.
Hmmm. A thought to keep in mind.Silver Asiatic_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

If someone says that torturing babies is wrong for them but it may be right for someone else, that is evil. So you and I will have to disagree.
Disagree about what, specifically? It sounds like your post is worded to suggest that we disagree about torturing babies. I'm sure you wouldn't imply that intentionally so it must have been a mistake. In my experience arguments that require hyperbole and extreme hypotheticals just aren’t that good to start with. If you're appealing to reason you don't need to provoke an emotional reaction.OldAndrew_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

It's actually relevant for late-term abortions which create torturing pain for babies (as do earlier stages, but late term are most obvious). Does the abortionist do this "for fun"? Well, they do it for profit. Are they doing a job that they hate? If not, there is job satisfaction - which is a form of "fun". Either way, the proposal may even be worse - instead of "torturing babies for fun", it could be "torturing babies for profit". Is that morally any more acceptable? Some will claim that the abortionists are heroes because they're showing now much they care, etc. It's torturing babies. There are some people lately who celebrate abortion. "Shout Abortion" movement.Silver Asiatic_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

jdk @ 28
SA, I accept that to someone that accepts the premises that objective moral standards exist and that that we can know them with certainty, as Barry does, the conclusion that tbff is evil is true. There is nothing controversial about that. But I do not accept the premises.
Ok - it's good that you do see that the logic is consistent, given the premises. As for that first premise - what would convince you that it is true? What evidence would you be looking for?Silver Asiatic_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

OA @52. If someone says that torturing babies is wrong for them but it may be right for someone else, that is evil. So you and I will have to disagree.Barry Arrington_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Yes, I am deleting all posts that attempt to hijack and/or redirect the thread. And I will continue to do so.
Having read the entire OP, what exactly is the "direction" of the thread so that one may avoid hijacking or redirecting it? It's not clear. (I'm not sure if asking that question is redirecting, hijacking, or both.) Must all comments continue in the theme of self-congratulation and pointing out what an evil baby-torturer/coward/liar jdk supposedly is? I'll just disagree and see if that's permitted. I haven't seen any evidence that he is a coward or has attempted to deceive anyone. I'll also assert that his moral rejection of baby torture is equal to yours, mine, and that of any other sane person. When a person says that they believe torturing babies is wrong, that is sufficient. They do not need to convince anyone that their belief has adequate basis. I don't think you would torture a baby either. I think that you and jdk are exactly as likely to torture a baby. If you think that your reasons for not torturing babies are better than his, good for you. If you don't, most people don't care, but it's still possible to have a civil discussion about something meaningless. Getting all bent out of shape just doesn't make sense.OldAndrew_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

JDK:
Today, Barry choose to inaccurately and dishonestly highlight part of a conversation I was having
Liar. Still waiting for a response to my comment at 14.Barry Arrington_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Barry Posts the following: Barry: Can we know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure? JDK: “There is no possible answer to the question: it’s a meaningless question.” JDK screams: Intellectually dishonest out-of-context quote! (comment 8) Only to come back later and say the same thing in comment 41: “any question about whether we can know them (i.e., transcendent moral truths) or not makes no sense, because if they don’t exist, there is nothing to know.” Putting the lie to his charge that I quoted him in a misleading way.Barry Arrington_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

If according to a moral subjectivists, like Jack, interpersonal moral obligations don’t really exist (however, exactly how he really knows that he hasn’t explained) then how is anyone obligated to be honest? And if there is no standard of honesty how do we determine who is being honest or what honesty really is. In other words, Jack’s accusation that Barry is being dishonest is nothing more than his unwarranted subjective opinion. He can’t make that claim that Barry is being dishonest unless there is a real moral-ethical standard that both he and Barry ARE OBLIGATED to follow.john_a_designer_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

JDK Let’s change Barrys question. From Can we know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure? To Can we know with absolute certainty that it is funny to torture a baby for pleasure? How would you answer? Vividvividbleau_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Vivid, we were discussing this very question on the other thread. Today, Barry choose to inaccurately and dishonestly highlight part of a conversation I was having with you and start a new thread. (He also refuses to correct his heading stating that I am a materialist, FWIW) That action on Barry's part is what this thread is about, as far as I am concerned. If you want to continue our discussion, post over on the other thread.jdk_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

JDK Why are my inquiries relevant in one thread and not this one? This is a very important issue that is completely relevant to this thread. Barrys question concerns two subjects. 1) Knowledge ( knowing with certainty) and 2) Evil. The focus has been on “evil” I want to discuss the 1st part ( certainty of knowing). So it is very relevant to this thread. Vividvividbleau_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

JDK
I do not believe objective, transcendent moral standards exist.
Yes. I understand.
Therefore, any question about whether we can know them or not makes no sense, because if they don’t exist, there is nothing to know.
On the contrary, it is very meaningful. It goes like this: Moral truths do not exist; therefore I don't believe we can know what doesn't exist. Very meaningful. Extending: For me (JDK), there is no moral truth to say that it is wrong to torture babies, therefore, I can't know that it is wrong to torture babies. Very meaningful, indeed.StephenB_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Vivid, the other thread is the place for further discussion about this for me.jdk_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

JDK “I do not believe objective, transcendent moral standards exist. Therefore, any question about whether we can know them or not makes no sense, because if they don’t exist, there is nothing to know.” Got that for that reason i want to focus on “knowledge” thus the reason for my question in 37 which I hope you will address. On the other thread you wrote that you dont believe it is True ( capital T) that there is no Truth ( capital T) So unlike evil you do accept ( capital T) Truth. You go on to write that you believe there is no Truth that we can know and give reasons why. To say one believes there is no Truth (capital T) we can know is that we cannot know anything with certainty. Is this a correct interpretation of your position? Vividvividbleau_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

JDK
Logic 101 Given: if p then q if ~q then ~p is a logically correct proposition if ~p then ~q is a logically incorrect conclusion
Yes, of course, but we don't need all of that. All we need is this: If P, then Q. If I can't know that ANY moral act is evil, then I can't know that THIS moral act is evil (torturing babies for fun.) JDK has confessed that P is true (for him), but he will not confess that Q is true (for him) Why?StephenB_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Vivid, maybe your question in 37 was meant to refer specifically to Barry's questions. (I took it as more general than that when I responded in at 38.) I do not believe objective, transcendent moral standards exist. Therefore, any question about whether we can know them or not makes no sense, because if they don't exist, there is nothing to know.jdk_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

JDK, Still waiting for a response to 14. You have posted 8 times since I posted at 14. Conclusion: JDK falsely accused me of intellectual dishonestly. He refuses to acknowledge and apologize, but continues to take advantage of the UD platform to spew his vile moral sewage. Natch.Barry Arrington_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

JDK What I want is an answer to my question LOL. Vividvividbleau_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Vivid, if you want to discuss any of the more general issues, such as how we know different kinds of things, the other thread would be a better place. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/subjectiviest-cowardice-on-display/jdk_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply