WJM on Arguing with Subjectivists

Typically in these kinds of debates the moral subjectivist will try to make an argument that begins with, “How would you feel if…” However, it doesn’t seem to be used as much in the debates about bakers, florists and photographers refusing to provide their services to an SS couple because they reject SSM on religious grounds. Why is that? I think it’s because people like me would have no problem being denied service if we were in a similar situation under similar circumstances. For example, suppose I found a photographer who took great iconic photographs but he refused to take pictures for my Saturday wedding because he was an orthodox Jew who strictly observed the Sabbath. How would I feel? Disappointed. What would I do? I would find another photographer. However, suppose later I discovered later that he didn’t do gentile weddings at all. Would that make a difference? No, why would it? Furthermore, I would argue that people who would sue in such a case neither understand or respect what it means to have freedom of conscience. An open and free democratic society cannot continue to exist unless there is freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience, thought and belief (religion) is the fundamental right upon which a free society is built. john_a_designer

CF, nope, you have changed binding moral obligations into tastes and preferences and feel-bads or social disapproval. Not the same at all. Conscience testifies to duty, which is utterly different from how one feels. (Just ask a soldier about the nature of courage.) The question is, does it speak truly, or is it delusion. KF kairosfocus

@clownFish - sorry there clown, I got you mixed up with Indiana Effigy... who used the exact same alias mix-up that you did along with the same posting style.... my bad for thinking you were he/she/it. Still praying for you and hopeful that you can pull out of the fog of material subjective-ism-s. You seem clever enough but... the propping up of silly facades to try and support a moral position starts to get pretty obvious. Sometimes there is just a chemical imbalance or even mental deficiency that prevents us from accepting the truth.... that can be overcome by first seeking it....willfully...the rest will follow for you brother. Trumper

07:

How could a baker refuse to bake a cake on moral and spiritual grounds? What do morals and spirits have to do with baking a cake?

Nothing at all. And if a homosexual came into the shop and asked for a cake, the baker should have no reason to not bake one for him. To refuse to bake a cake purely on the grounds that the customer was homosexual would be discrimination. But that's not what happened. The issue was that a cake was ordered to be used in what the baker considered a sacred rite, and that that rite was to be performed in a manner that was in opposition to the religious views of the baker. It didn't matter whether the customer was a homosexual or heterosexual ordering a cake to be used in this manner.

In any case the law requires that people providing goods and services don’t discriminate. If the baker was Muslim would you endorse them refusing service to Jews?

OK. Now, in order to make the analogy fit, suppose that the Jew is asking the Muslim to put a picture of Muhammad on the cake. Should the baker be required to do that simply because a Jew is asking and it would therefore be discriminatory to refuse? Phinehas

CF continues to use semantics to avoid the substance. He says:

I think that you would agree that this is not an objective moral value, yet I feel very uncomfortable if I don’t get to a door fast enough when a woman or an older person is entering a building.Is this a personal preference on the same level as ice cream flavours or music. Of course not. No more so than my revulsion when I hear racially charged language, which is also the result of my parents “beating” that value into me.

My challenge was for CF to show how his morals (under moral subjectivism) do not depend entirely upon his personal preferences. He thinks he has met that challenge by arguing that his moral behavior is driven by personal preferences that are on a different level from other personal preferences, like choosing a flavor of ice cream. CF: personal preference that are on a "different level" than other personal preferences are still personal preferences. Please pay attention to this exchange between Zeroseven and myself:

zeroseven said:

I have explained this many times. Early learning, indoctrination, negative and positive feedback, experience, repetition, etc. are known to produce subconscious “feelings” that are very deeply entrenched and difficult to violate without mental anguish (or discomfort). If you doubt me, get up tomorrow and conciously button your shirt it a different way than you routinely do. If something as trivial as buttoning your shirt can result in something more deeply seated than a mere “preference”, why would you think that values that have been beaten into you from the time you were born would be less so?

WJM responds:

That doesn't change what moral subjectivism is in categorical terms. Even if, because of culture, authority and nature, you have a deep-seated revulsion of nuts, and eating nuts could physically kill you because of allergies, and you cannot even watch others eating nuts, you recognize that it is an entirely subjective, individual, personal reaction/preference and, if sane, you would never think of imposing a nut ban or a law about how to button your shirt on anyone else, nor would you feel either justified or obligated to intervene to stop them from eating nuts or buttoning their shirt differently. In fact, you would consider it immoral (or crazy) for anyone to intervene in this way in the personal habits of others, much less attempt to give such personal views/habits/proclivities/preferences force of law.

CF: in all seriousness, you're just making a fool of yourself when you insist on trying to describe our experience of morality as if it were like anything we hold to be subjective. Our experience of personal, subjective things is categorically different than our experience of morality. Just because there are many moral situations that shade towards being more like subjective experiences doesn't put morality in the same category of those subjective experiences because we know some moral laws are absolute; we are committed to their truth even against the majority or the government; we are willing to impose them on others via force of law and we are obligated even against personal preference to intervene in the behavior of others if the moral situation calls for it. We will risk our own safety, our lives and the comfort of our loved ones for certain moral principles. To sit here and insist morality is subjective even while agreeing that we all act as if it is objective, and (I presume) admit your willingness to go against the government, break laws, defy majority and risk personal safety and the comfort of your family what you insist are subjective personal views is insanity. Did you get that? If you are telling me you are willing to risk life and limb, family, defy government, law and majority to satisfy what you insist are personal, subjective preferences - no matter how strongly held - then I posit that you are insane and likely a sociopath, because it is only sociopaths that think it is okay to force their personal preferences, no matter how strongly felt, on others. William J Murray

"hold the door open for women and the elderly" Fish, you are a polite abortionist. Well mannered supporter of murder(the freakiest kind of people). Was that"beat" into you? Eugen

WJM: "I challenge CF and zeroseven to explain, from logically consistent moral subjectivism, how any of their moral views do not depend entirely upon personal preference, and how that principle cannot be used to make anything moral – even cruelty." Morals, regardless of their origin, span the gamut from deeply entrenched to weakly held. I assume that you would agree with this. It was "beat" into me from an early age by my parents that I must hold the door open for women and the elderly. I think that you would agree that this is not an objective moral value, yet I feel very uncomfortable if I don't get to a door fast enough when a woman or an older person is entering a building. Is this a personal preference on the same level as ice cream flavours or music. Of course not. No more so than my revulsion when I hear racially charged language, which is also the result of my parents "beating" that value into me. So, if you persist in making the false claim that subjective morality is no more than personal preference, then you have no idea what subjective morality is. clown fish

Kairosfocus: "CF, there you go again. Mung is right to challenge you to restate without implying or suggesting or premising on the binding nature of OUGHT." Boy, you guys simply won't take yes for an answer. I guess that you must pathologically disagree with everything that an atheist says. Here, let me repeat again: I ACCEPT THE BINDING NATURE OF OUGHT. As I have said, over and over again. I am bound by my moral values, as is everyone except psychopaths. And maybe even they are except that their moral values differ so drastically from most others. That can happen with subjective morality. "Likewise, having been repeatedly advised [and in the face of actually (and predictably) finding yourself being outrageous by playing the agenda piggyback game], you keep on insisting that principled objection to dubious behaviour is to be equated to racism." So, racism isn't dubious behaviour? 1 --> Inter-racial marriages are legal. A baker who refuses to bake a cake for an inter-racial couple because he does not believe that inter-racial marriages are natural is displaying bigoted behaviour and is breaking the law. 2 --> Non-religious (civil) marriages are legal. A baker who refuses to bake a cake for an atheist couple because he believes that a marriage is a religious sacrament is displaying bigoted behaviour and is breaking the law. 3 --> Same sex marriage is legal. A baker who refuses to bake a cake for a same sex couple couple because he believes that homosexuality is a sin and same sex marriages are not natural is displaying bigoted behaviour and is breaking the law. So drawing an analogy between SSM and inter-racial marriage is valid. Unless you are claiming that the expression of what a person sees as their religious freedom cannot be bigoted behaviour. Religion isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. "That insistent rhetoric of polarisation and marginalisation on your part speaks volumes and is a warning bell to those who look on and see the agenda of delegitimisation of people of principle for what it is." We are debating objective vs subjective morality and you label anyone who thinks that morality is subjective is polarizing and marginalizing. That speaks volumes about the validity of your claim. "Especially, when we observe the pattern in thread of refusal to recognise the pivotal importance of freedom of conscience, expression and worship. Which are so important that this is actually the issues- context of the 1st Amdt to the US Constitution. KF" I have not refused to recognize the importance of freedom of conscience, expression and worship. But none of these are absolute. clown fish

There are several reasons I don’t get into extended debates or discussions with our moral subjectivist interlocutors. First of all, like epistemological subjectivism, moral subjectivism is an absurd self-refuting position. When you make the argument “there is no truth” you are making a truth claim about truth. But how is that possible if there is no truth? Second, most of the moral subjectivist I have interacted with in the past are either incorrigibly ignorant, disingenuous or hypocritical. (I am trying to say that as nicely as I can.) For example, you cannot argue that there is such a thing as morally binding human rights on the basis of moral subjectivism. Yet even here on this thread we have moral subjectivists arguing for gay rights, transgender rights and SSM as if these were morally binding and universal. How is that possible on the basis of moral subjectivism? IOW when it comes to human rights, how can what is true for you be true me? Thirdly (but not finally) how are you going to convince someone like me that your position is true, if there is no truth in the area of morals? Because you say so? Who are you to tell me what to believe and think? john_a_designer

Moral subjectivists (atheists) live in a fairytale land where there is no REAL right or wrong, only an illusion of such that can change at any moment depending on who is asked. Yet these same primates rage with moral indignation at anything they believe to be "wrong," evidently not smart enough to see the glaring contradiction of their ways. Thinking themselves wise, they became fools. Truth Will Set You Free

Eugen@148: You are correct. See john-a-designer@63. Truth Will Set You Free

Someone mentioned bakers refusing to bake a cake for homosexual "wedding". Can it be argued that bakers are not discriminating based on sexual orientation i.e. they don't hate homosexuals but just disagree about small aspect of homosexual activity, in this case "wedding". I don't think it's discrimination to disagree about someone's activity and refuse to support it. Example: baker may not hate nudists but can disagree to put private body parts symbols on a cake nudists ordered for their party. I would appreciate if someone can help me clarify this. Eugen

Moral subjectivists think the comparison between their moral feelings and other personal preferences is an unfair comparison. They attempt to show such feelings to be "different" by building a case about how strong such feelings are, and by waving their hands towards other very strong feelings generated by some combination of nature/nurture. However, as I point out in #144 above, even personal preferences that are driven by the physical facts or any combination of physical fact and upbringing does not change how sane people act with regards to commodities actually believed to be entirely personal and subjective to their individual experience such as, for example, buttoning your shirt a particular way (which zeroseven brought up a an example) or even a factual, life-threatening allergy accompanied by a deep psychological aversion to nuts (which would be even more serious than just "buttoning your shirt the wrong way"). Even with such a debilitating physical and emotional reaction to nuts, you don't attempt to intervene when others are eating nuts; you turn your head or leave if you have to because you know there is nothing objectively wrong with other people eating nuts. and you know it is wrong to force your personal, subjective issues on others who do not suffer from the same physiological and psychological issues you feel around nuts. You certainly don't try to pass a law criminalizing nut-eating, much less alternative techniques for shirt-buttoning! Sorry, but the attempt to paint morality as a strongly-held feeling just doesn't get past the sniff test. Nobody acts as if morality is "a strongly held feeling" even in combination with some genetic, physical allergy or compulsion. If these comparisons are made in sincerity, then those who have made them are lying to themselves because all it takes is just a little internal reflection to realize that morality and how we act in regards to it is categorically different than how we experience subjective commodities. Categorically, morality is like our experience of objective things. We argue as if it is objective and we act as if it is objective, so to say our experience of morality is like that of subjective commodities is an absurd, self-deceiving, superficial narrative that serves no purpose other than to tell oneself a story about morality that fits in with other things one wants to believe (or disbelieve). William J Murray

Moving an unanswered question from the Moral privilege thread to this thread; Clown Fish said:

I have no moral problem with abortion up until the point at which the brain has sufficiently developed that it counsciously perceives pain.

Then said:

We agree. It [right to life] is the most fundamental of subjective rights.

If you hold that the right to life is the most fundamental of rights, why is it okay to kill the unborn as long as they do not yet feel pain? William J Murray

Moving a challenge from the Moral Privilege thread to this thread: Once again: I challenge CF and zeroseven to explain, from logically consistent moral subjectivism, how any of their moral views do not depend entirely upon personal preference, and how that principle cannot be used to make anything moral - even cruelty. Then, explain how in a world where anything and everything can be "moral" as long as the individual claims it to be for themselves, why one should even bother using the term "morality"? What value can one possibly add to a choice by calling it a "moral" choice? William J Murray

Moving a comment from the Moral Privilege thread to here: zeroseven said:

You talk about subjective morals as “preferences” as if it is no different than your preference of ice cream flavour. Yet, I have never heard a subjectivist say that subjective moral values were as trivial as that.

Of course they don't say it because (1) they know it's not true, and (2) they know how it would look if they said something like that. The problem is that to assert that morality is subjective is to categorize morality as the same kind of thing as a personal preference. That category of subjective preferences includes some very trivial things. Subjective morality is like a trivial preference because it is categorically the same kind of thing.

I have explained this many times. Early learning, indoctrination, negative and positive feedback, experience, repetition, etc. are known to produce subconscious “feelings” that are very deeply entrenched and difficult to violate without mental anguish (or discomfort). If you doubt me, get up tomorrow and conciously button your shirt it a different way than you routinely do. If something as trivial as buttoning your shirt can result in something more deeply seated than a mere “preference”, why would you think that values that have been beaten into you from the time you were born would be less so?

That doesn't change what moral subjectivism is in categorical terms. Even if, because of culture, authority and nature, you have a deep-seated revulsion of nuts, and eating nuts could physically kill you because of allergies, and you cannot even watch others eating nuts, you recognize that it is an entirely subjective, individual, personal reaction/preference and, if sane, you would never think of imposing a nut ban or a law about how to button your shirt on anyone else, nor would you feel either justified or obligated to intervene to stop them from eating nuts or buttoning their shirt differently. In fact, you would consider it immoral (or crazy) for anyone to intervene in this way in the personal habits of others, much less attempt to give such personal views/habits/proclivities/preferences force of law. Once again, CF [zeroseven], I can easily see that you have never given any of this much thought because you keep throwing up defenses or explanations that only serve to expose how irrational your view is. We experience morality as categorically unlike any subjective/personal/individual proclivity, preference or even natural tendency. We experience fundamental moral principles as metaphysical absolutes, a universally binding perception of what humans - all humans - should and should not do and the rights they have. We cannot escape acting as if some core moral principles are more important than our personal desires, our very lives or the comfort of our loved ones. There are moral truths we hold to be more certain and more factual than provisional scientific facts. We are all absolutely certain, whether we admit it or not, that cruelty is immoral in every conceivable world and love is good in every conceivable world and that morality would make no sense at all if cruelty could be a good thing. Some of us, however, are not willing to admit these truths to ourselves. Do people disagree about what is good and what is evil? Certainly, just as people have disagreed about all things, even physical facts. The "people disagree" card is nothing but a sentimental pass with zero rational weight you give yourselves so you don't actually have to critically examine the nonsense you are advancing. You can throw whatever hypocritical, self-defeating, erroneous analogies you come up with at the wall to see if they stick; all you are doing is revealing the shallowness of your thought on the matter and the unrelenting, irrational hypocrisy of your moral framework. William J Murray

JAD @72: Wow. Regrettably, hat sounds like it could be a direct quote from my first or second book. What Bundy writes is indeed the logical conclusion of moral subjectivism. Fortunately for me I took the opportunity to change my direction, but not before considerable damage had been done. Seversky, CF and zeroseven are subjectivist dilettantes. As long as they remain superficial and commit to subjectivism in name only (while acting entirely as if moral objectivism is true and depending on it in the behavior of others), they can maintain their hypocritical objectivist privileges while espousing subjectivist nonsense. It would be a whole different story if they had to live outside of the ivory tower moral objectivism built and maintains for them, or if they actually had to act (or argue) like moral subjectivists. William J Murray

Mr Barry Arrington, at the beginning quotes Zeroseven: -------------------- "Just give your practical example and we can explore it." --------------------- We should be concerned with keeping the law; especially divine law. In Judaeo-Christian terms, are the Ten Commandments, which KF rightly draws on, subjective or objective? Bearing in mind, faith is a conviction in the unseen. Darwinism creates another God at best. Darwin dismissed our Parent God; saying He is "erroneous" on origins. Steals from God glory and honour; awe, that He created in six days, as He wrote and said. Darwinist Christians covet Darwin's word over the God of Sinai, reinforce by Jesus. Dismiss the Sabbath as commemorating the end of Holy Creation. Adulterates Sinai with brainless common descent via an unprovable process. Objectively kills the faith of children, as given at Sinai by largely philosophical and intellectual arguments, not bound by true regulatory science, evolutionism not being law. Darwinism creates the delusion/fact, that God lied at Sinai. That sins of the Fathers' passed down; who knows, by some form of epigenetics or Darwinian natural selection to become fitter at sinning! Therefore, my belief is, that no matter how ID moves, or how Christianity in general moves; which is largely down in these times, unless Sinai is taken on face value, as objective law, we (Judaeo-Christians) have set sail into a dark pit of our making, intellectually placing millstones round the necks of children by largely subjectifying divine law. I simply raise the questions, and implications, devoid of any judgement, in a thread where the Decalouge and subjective/objective morals are and have been brought into the mix. Can there be anything more beautiful, more awe inspiring, more earth shattering, than seeing God face to face: God giving to humans, in love, for love, through love, His divine Word? Moses did in a limited aspect. mw

F/N: Regarding beauty and principles. Of course, the world of music is pivotal historically, as the Pythagorean identification of numerical ratios of frequency as a root of harmonious tones and by extension chords etc, was momentous. Indeed, we can see the reasoning from the harmony of music to the harmony of the heavens and thence the earth, thus the rise of the vision of that severe beauty, mathematical elegance. With all sorts of implications for the rise of Science also. It is not for nothing that the trivium: Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic, went on to the quadrivium: Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. And how can I speak of beauty without highlighting that most beautiful expression, by Euler: 0 = 1 + e^(i * pi) Never underestimate the powerful and pleasing impact of elegant, powerfully unifying simplicity in the midst of vast diversity. In literature, there has long been a classical tradition on unifying structures and patterns, pivoting on the premise of a deep structure to narrative. For instance, Northrop Frye (summing up and building on long traditions) has spoken of a one story/ monomyth of literature, keyed to the classic seasons. One may group as comedy -- spring, romance -- summer, tragedy -- fall, winter -- anti-romances (irony and satire). And yes, the story types move along the cycle of varieties, showing repeating themes and progress, with character, circumstances, conflict and resolution as drivers of plot development. WILLIAM HOGARTH: The Analysis of Beauty is a classic work on underlying principles of axiology, with particular reference to the visual, and the highlighting of unifying lines in composition, especially the classic elegant S-shape. He speaks of fitness, variety, regularity, [elegant] simplicity [--> recall, less is more?], intricacy, quantity [greatness of magnitude]. So, despite the tendencies of a cynical and too often dismissive era to deride principles and guidelines (and to almost worship the politically correct bizarre, merely novel and ugly . . .), it is patently not so that beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder. This becomes particularly so in the widespread agreement on facial beauty, especially female facial beauty: http://www.beautyanalysis.com/ Nor should we forget the golden ratio, phi: 1.618 etc, cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio There is a reason why justice, truth and beauty have long been tightly coupled. Where, yes, there is morally connected beauty in thought, word and character too. Where, that beauty may well be a gateway to call us back to sanity as a civilisation. KF kairosfocus

CF, there you go again. Mung is right to challenge you to restate without implying or suggesting or premising on the binding nature of OUGHT. Likewise, having been repeatedly advised [and in the face of actually (and predictably) finding yourself being outrageous by playing the agenda piggyback game], you keep on insisting that principled objection to dubious behaviour is to be equated to racism. That insistent rhetoric of polarisation and marginalisation on your part speaks volumes and is a warning bell to those who look on and see the agenda of delegitimisation of people of principle for what it is. Especially, when we observe the pattern in thread of refusal to recognise the pivotal importance of freedom of conscience, expression and worship. Which are so important that this is actually the issues- context of the 1st Amdt to the US Constitution. KF kairosfocus

Vivid: Excellent. And proof positive that the principle is that one's claimed rights must be based on manifestly being in the right. KF PS: Beauty, contrary to common views today, has historically been understood in light of objective principles, starting with the Pythagorean discovery of mathematical principles of harmony in music, what 2600 years ago. And here is a classic counter-blast to subjectivism on beauty: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/1217/1/Davis_Fontes52.pdf kairosfocus

Sev " I argue, that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/6/C/dead8.jpg Vivid vividbleau

Sev " I argue, however that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/X/8/children3.jpg Vivid vividbleau

"So what. It’s not like there is any objective moral ought that was violated." Mungy want a cracker? clown fish

Sev I argue,however that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" http://f.tqn.com/y/history1900s/1/L/i/8/einsatz2.jpg Vivid vividbleau

Vivid: "” I argue, however that evil, like beauty ,is in the eye of the beholder”" I saw your post right after mine and at first thought that it was in response to me. The juxtaposition was just too creepy. clown fish

Sev I argue, however that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder " http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/9/C/dead4.jpg Vivid vividbleau

clown fish: So, you are proven wrong on me intentionally mangling names So what. It's not like there is any objective moral ought that was violated. Mung

clown fish: All you have to do is prove it. Please subtract the implied objective moral ought. Or admit you're a lying hypocrite. Mung

Sev " I argue, however that evil, like beauty ,is in the eye of the beholder" http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/Q/A/prisoner7.jpg Vivid vividbleau

Trumper: "“Given that I have only commented a couple weeks”… yikes.. so now you seem to have lost track of time too…. as you have been commenting for far more than just a couple weeks… can you actually state the truth or are you more at home with lying? Just how many ‘weeks’ has CF been commenting?" Hmm. Since May 18. How long ago is that? Several months as you claim? Or closer to a couple weeks as I claimed? So, you are proven wrong on me intentionally mangling names (Mung not withstanding) and now you are proven wrong on how long I have been commenting here. Your credibility must be taking a beating. Are there any other things you would like to accuse me of? Perhaps torturing babies? Or persecuting Christians? clown fish

Trumper: "@ CF- So my point of you modifying user aliases can be shown not only in this thread but other threads (as far as a few months back that I am concerned with)…yes childish." All you have to do is prove it. "@Zeroseven – Thanks but what is NZ?" You really have to get out of the hills of Kentucky and open an atlas. :) New Zealand. clown fish

Hi 07, this is completely off topic but I spent a couple weeks in NZ (north island only) a year ago February. What a beautiful part of the world. I highly recommend it for everyone. But one word of caution. The locals do not take kindly to tourists from countries that drive on the right renting a car there. A second word of caution, they have an a natural attraction to cricket. clown fish

@ CF- So my point of you modifying user aliases can be shown not only in this thread but other threads (as far as a few months back that I am concerned with)...yes childish. "Given that I have only commented a couple weeks"... yikes.. so now you seem to have lost track of time too.... as you have been commenting for far more than just a couple weeks... can you actually state the truth or are you more at home with lying? Just how many 'weeks' has CF been commenting? @Zeroseven - Thanks but what is NZ? "but if it is just towards Mung...." LOL gotta give you that one. Trumper

mike1962 @ 61

BA: Seversky asserts that the Holocaust was evil only “in my opinion.” Then he asks “Isn’t that enough?” If he really cannot see the Holocaust was truly and absolutely evil, then he is blind, and we cannot fault him nor help him. If he does see that it was evil, and denies it, he is a liar

I agree that the Holocaust in my opinion was unmitigated evil, just as it was in your opinion. I argue, however, that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If you think that there is some moral yardstick out there somewhere against which all behavior can be measured then feel free to tell us all where we can find it. Seversky

Trumper: In NZ it's called the Human Rights Act. Not sure what its called in your jurisdiction. No, I hadn't noticed Clownfish doing that. But if its just towards Mung that's ok. zeroseven

Trumper: "Do you recall how to spell my alias? Trumped or Trumper?" It must be nice to never have misspelled a word. If you have been following for months, as you say you have, you will see that I have misspelled many words. "I can go back a few months of this type of behavior too.. but luckily I only need to go back as far as this thread to show it." Given that I have only been commenting for a couple weeks, that would be a nice trick. "I have no intention of disrupting your love relationship with Mung and Charles would be less of a pseudonym eh?" Sorry, you lost me there. clown fish

Truth Will Set You Free @ 58

Forcing a private bakery to make a cake for homosexuals is an outrageous attack on individual liberty, and an ominous sign of things to come. Things are going to get much worse…for everyone.

In the Colorado case, they were prosecuted for being in breach of a state law which prohibited public enterprises like a bakery from discriminating against their customers on the grounds of religion, race, sex etc. The court decided against them on those grounds. The free exercise of your religious beliefs doesn't mean you can get away with anything. While society should uphold that right for all, the line should reasonably be drawn where the exercise of religion infringes on the rights of others. You could not, to take an extreme example, kill a child at a religious ceremony and defend it on the grounds that a central tenet of your faith requires that a child be sacrificed to propitiate your god. Seversky

Barry Arrington @ 51

Seversky asserts that the Holocaust was evil only “in my opinion.” Then he asks “Isn’t that enough?” No, Sev, it is not enough. You might as well have said “Holocausts are not to my taste, but I acknowledge that someone else might have a different taste.” Something is very wrong when your moral nihilism reduces you to thinking about the “Holocaust-Peace on Earth” choice in the same terms as the “Chocolate-Vanilla” choice.

Then it's a good job that's not what I think. Whatever you're trying to imply, not all opinions are trivial. My opinion about the Holocaust is not in any way equivalent to my opinion of vanilla except in being an opinion.

You know for an absolute certainty that the choices are not in the same category. Yet you are forced by your premises to pretend that they are. Here’s a clue Sev. When your premises force you to affirm a position that no sane person would affirm, perhaps you should reject those premises.

I acknowledged that Nazis thought that the Holocaust was a good thing. That doesn't mean I agree with them. Neither did most of the rest of the world. Are you saying those opinions count for nothing? Seversky

Thanks CF... so it looks like you disagree with one's freedoms of core beliefs. Is this more of a state regulated belief system or national one? Sure it would be great to have all children find a good safe home to be raised in....mostly the child can't choose their home... heck they couldn't choose that they were to be born or not right? so why not place a white child with a black couple back in the 50's... pretty sick game that would of been eh? (i.e. your point is worthless now if you value the child foremost). I have very very close friends/family who are gay/bi and I have a great relationship with them...I actually pray for them often as a few of them have found a clearer path. (not claiming responsibility). Unfortunately my personal experience has exposed the more hateful and bigoted actions by the lgbt-xyz group in forcing the shuttering of real businesses and closing of adoption services...real lives... sadly the evidence stacks up against what you are trying to claim/hide. I still love you, and pray that you can find the Light Love and Truth that is available to us as we work our way through this 'life'. CF responds to my post about morphing user aliases: "Really? The only one I have done this to intentionally is Mung because of his childish tendency to stalk me " So if I prove that you have done this more that just once then you would be a liar... Do you recall how to spell my alias? Trumped or Trumper? I can go back a few months of this type of behavior too.. but luckily I only need to go back as far as this thread to show it. I have no intention of disrupting your love relationship with Mung and Charles would be less of a pseudonym eh? Trumper

Clown fish triggered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy6spOAbxhg Eugen

Hi Mungy. Obviously you suffer from the same reading comprehension problems that KairosFocus does. If you were interested, you could simply read back on my comments about OUGHT and morality. But you won't. So, feel free to repeat the same childish statements in response to any of my comments if it makes you feel important. Most of us grew out of that stage in our early teens. Within time, I am confident that you will as well. clown fish

The hypocrisy is strong. .. "Don't force your religious morality on me" says the materialist but you will bake my friend a cake.... "I don't care about your morals only my own" says the materialist. " Oh and we must all be tolorant even if I create a law to force you to do so" says the materialist. Andre

Also, “Clowny Fishfood” – isn’t that a bit childish? So? Please remove the implied moral ought from that statement and resubmit. Mung

clown fish: By the way, did you know why I chose Clown Fish as my pseudonym? Because you found in it a denial of objective moral values while also finding in it an affirmation of objective moral values. Could you at least make an attempt to exclude the implied moral ought from your questions and proclamations here at UD, given your insistence that any stated or implied moral ought is merely your subjective opinion. Mung

Trumper: "Maybe you missed all the silly derivations clowny posts on users aliases…" Really? The only one I have done this to intentionally is Mung because of his childish tendency to stalk me around and question every comment, regardless of subject, with, "why OUGHT I believe you?" Other than this, the only other incident I am aware of is my iPhone autocorrecting Phinehas to something else. But since Clown Fish is a pseudonym, I have no problem if you play games with it, or even use my real name. By the way, did you know why I chose Clown Fish as my pseudonym? clown fish

Hi Trumper, for the longest time I was in favour of SSM but on the fence about adoption. But I have done some research and have personal experience with a few gay couples with children. In short, the challenges faced by kids raised by same sex parents has nothing to do with the lack of a male father or a female mother. It has more to do with the bigoted intolerance that they experience from close-minded, sadly often religious, homophobes. It wasn't too long ago that adoption agencies would not place a black child with a white couple, or vice versa. You don't change bigoted attitudes by giving into them. You change them by facing them head on. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I now support the ability of same sex couples to adopt. clown fish

Zero - Couple things: "rather the baker complied with the law than close down." -what law is this that you are referring to? Please state "Clowny Fishfood” – isn’t that a bit childish?" -Yes...yes it is a bit childish but sometimes one needs to lower their platform to converse with the childish... Maybe you missed all the silly derivations clowny posts on users aliases... but that would require you to chastise CF...and you have not... hmmmmm now that there seems a bit childish or just a lack of being astute. Trumper

Also, "Clowny Fishfood" - isn't that a bit childish? zeroseven

Trumper its not about love. Or hate. Why do you guys go to extremes all the time? I imaging the LGBT "group" whatever that is, would just rather the baker complied with the law than close down. zeroseven

@Clowny Fishfood - The sad state of the liberal slant is not about love but about hate (discrimination and intolerance). The LGBT-xyz group would rather close down a bakery instead accepting that there actually exists a view counter their own. Sadly we see the destruction of lives that this camp pushes out due to the ending of adoption services for children....Thousands upon thousands of children lost opportunities to land in a family due to the homosexual agenda of 'fairness'. In other words... intolerance of Catholic Charities adoption service forced it to shut down since they would not violate their free beliefs.... Maybe it would of been better if adoption agencies were forced to actually place children into every household regardless of safety or anything...just deal out the kids like a card from a deck. Oh well , probably for the better that they were shut down eh? Trumper

Sorry Mike, I'm just a bit busy to respond in depth. A couple of hours until the end of the working week here and a few things to wrap up. Don't have time to read the link. But personally, yes, I would have gone somewhere more friendly if it was me. And if I encountered that attitude I would have walked away and found someone who wasn't a bigot. But that's just me and its not about me, its about the principle. zeroseven

Zeroseven, I didn't expect you would actually engage what I wrote in any substantive way. "taking a break from judging other people’s lives and calling them sinful and just enjoy your own" The gay couple could have easier followed your advice and gone to another baker, who was even gay himself, and gladly taken their money. There are lots of them out there. Problem solved. But no, they whined and had to "teach them a lesson." Just big bullies. Pathetic that you can't see that. What do you think about this man's view of the cake baker situation? http://www.christianpost.com/news/are-you-stupid-gay-baker-rips-lgbt-community-for-forcing-christian-bakers-to-make-cakes-for-same-sex-weddings-141798/ mike1962

Mike1962: Clearly you are not a fan of human rights legislation. Does it actually say in the bible that homosexuality is an abominable sin? (fyi, what I mean about smelling the roses, is just taking a break from judging other people's lives and calling them sinful and just enjoy your own). zeroseven

clown fish: Things like that is what makes me optimistic for society in the future. Why, if it's all subjective? Things could swing in an instant and not be any more or less objectively right or wrong. According to you. Fortunately no one acts as if you're right. Not even you. Mung

clown fish: So, when Rosa Parks and the black teens exerted their morally dubious behaviour, which it was characterized as at the time, they should have been ashamed of themselves? Try asking this question again after having stripped it of the implied objective moral ought that you deny exists. Mung

Kairosfocus: "CF, a wise person does not focus personal identity on morally questionable behaviour or attitudes, but instead starts from his or her morally governed, responsibly free nature and what that points to at the root of reality. Further to this such a person will not falsely claim as a right state backed power to intimidate others into supporting or enabling in morally dubious behavior" So, when Rosa Parks and the black teens exerted their morally dubious behaviour, which it was characterized as at the time, they should have been ashamed of themselves? What is most interesting is that the gays who are suing the bakers and florist and photographers and reprehensible county clerks, are being supported by people who, thirty years ago, would have supported the bakers, florists, photographers and reprehensible county clerks. That, my young man, really speaks volumes. Another story that hit the news recently was one in which a high school student, who was at the top of his class, was prevented by the school to give the valedictory address simply because he was gay. Most of the uproar against this bigoted action did not come from the LGBT community, it came from your basic "traditional" families. Things like that is what makes me optimistic for society in the future. clown fish

A gay baker speaks out against the cake bullies: http://www.christianpost.com/news/are-you-stupid-gay-baker-rips-lgbt-community-for-forcing-christian-bakers-to-make-cakes-for-same-sex-weddings-141798/ mike1962

Subjectivity does actually have a logic of it's own. The rule of subjectivity is to choose about what chooses, which procedure results in an opinion. That means that if one is forced to a conclusion, then it is a logically invalid opinion. If one is forced to say the painting is beautiful, it is an invalid opinion. Objectivity otoh uses the logic of correspondence. Evidence forces to produce a 1 to 1 model of what is evidenced, that model is the facts. For example if the police ask for the facts about what happened, they want a 1 to 1 corresponding model of what happened. Obviously the idea of "objective morality" is riddled with logic errors. mohammadnursyamsu

kairosFocus: “07, are you aware of why freedom of conscience and worship is regarded as one of the fundamental freedoms? KF” Clown Fish

are you aware that freedom of conscience does not extend to discrimination?

Religious freedom allows for free public expression and the ability to act on one's religious beliefs. Legal Discrimination is not the act of refusing service. It is the act of unjustly refusing to give service. To refuse on the grounds that giving such service would compromise one's religious faith is not unjust. To refuse because someone happens to be a member of a social group is unjust.

I still have a hard time understanding how being Christian allows you to deny services to someone because they are gay.

That is because Christians do not typically do that, as explained above. It is not the refusal that defines discrimination. It is the reason for the refusal. StephenB

07 "I think for most people here the safest thing is to adopt the default position that everything is morally wrong and then work from there." Don't you think it's the other way around? We imagine what a perfectly moral being would do? I don't lie because a perfectly moral being would always tell the truth; and so on and so forth. CannuckianYankee

Zeroseven Hi Mike, that premise just doesn’t make sense to me. That's too bad. How could a baker refuse to bake a cake on moral and spiritual grounds? What do morals and spirits have to do with baking a cake? The Bible says homosexuality is an abominable sin. Some people are convinced in their heart and soul that this is correct, and that to support and celebrate homosexuality by making a cake for a homosexual wedding would offend God. Is this the first time you're being informed of this? In any case the law requires that people providing goods and services don’t discriminate. In this case, that's too bad, since it's easy to find some other business that would accommodate the request. But zealous culture warriors are not really interested in wedding cakes. They want to harass people and "teach the offenders a lesson" because they think this will advance their cause that people "accept" their homosexuality. Little do they realize the harm it does to their own position, because it makes people like me (and their are lots of us) who are of the opinion of "live and live, and leave the religious people alone" pissed off about the culture warriors insistence of ramming their acceptance of homosexuality down other peoples throats, when it deeply offends their moral sensibilities. If the baker was Muslim would you endorse them refusing service to Jews? Yes. The Jews could, as you say, take a breath, smell the roses, and easily find a baker was Jewish friendly and who would gladly take their money for providing a cake. Nobody is being "persecuted" in modern America. Sidebar: people can freely choose to discriminate to patronize businesses based on whatever reason they choose. But for some reason you don't believe this should be a symmetrical freedom. For example, a person might be inclined to choose to visit a Jewish restaurant or doctor or lawyer instead of a Muslim one. Are you also in favor of forcing people to discard their personal preferences in these decisions and force them to patronize businesses owned by people they don't like? Should white people be forced to marry black people? Should pretty people be forced to marry ugly people? Why not? If we don't pass laws to force this, this unfairness will never end! My view is that people and businesses should be free to do business with whomever they want, regardless of the reason. Why is your view better than mine? If the baker was black and their spiritual belief was that whites were created inferior by god, would you endorse them refusing service to white people? Yes. And why should religious/spiritual views be singled out for special treatment. Why is homosexuality singled out for special treatment? Why should homosexuals be protected, and Nazis not be protected? Is it OK for a cake maker to refuse to make a cake for the KKK? Is it OK to force a homosexual cake maker to a cake for a some group that believes "God Hates Fags" and wants to put it on a cake? You are entitled to your religious views and I am entitled to afford those views no respect whatsoever. You are entitled to your sexual views and practices, but I am entitled to afford those views no respect whatsoever. Anyway, I didn't believe you were going to agree to your own advice about "taking a breath, smelling roses", etc. This is not really about homosexuals getting cakes for their weddings. Why would any homosexual couple want to give their money to a cake maker who doesn't want their money? Find someone else. This is not difficult to do anywhere in the USA. But this is about culture warriors ramming the "acceptance" of homosexuality and homosexual marriage down the throats of primarily Christians. But you just keep on keeping on. You're not doing yourself any favors. Trust me. In this case, the underdog are the Christians, and people love to support the underdog against bullies of whatever stripe. mike1962

CF "That is blatantly obvious given the way that some here continue to believe in things like objective morality and ID in spite of the evidence. As the old saying goes…You can lead a jackass to water, but you can’t make him drink." I don't think you realize how utterly ignorant of your materialist dilemma that statement is. You've probably been told this before; but if you can't trust the cells of your brain, neither can you trust that what you determine as evidence is reliable. If your mind or your thoughts are simply the input/output mechanisms of brain material that evolved for no purpose, then the notion that you can then determine truth is completely undermined. This may be the insight of why you don't believe that absolute morality exists; but it is also the insight invariably for why you shouldn't believe any rational proposal; including "copious amounts of evidence." Why then bother forming rational arguments at all? CannuckianYankee

07 So you take a breath and smell roses except when is time to sue baker. Eugen

CF, a wise person does not focus personal identity on morally questionable behaviour or attitudes, but instead starts from his or her morally governed, responsibly free nature and what that points to at the root of reality. Further to this such a person will not falsely claim as a right state backed power to intimidate others into supporting or enabling in morally dubious behavior. There is more, but that's a start. KF kairosfocus

Mung @93: I think for most people here the safest thing is to adopt the default position that everything is morally wrong and then work from there. zeroseven

Is it morally wrong to argue with a moral subjectivist? Mung

KairosFocus: "07, are you aware of why freedom of conscience and worship is regarded as one of the fundamental freedoms? KF" Are you aware that freedom of conscience does not extend to discrimination? I still have a hard time understanding how being Christian allows you to deny services to someone because they are gay. clown fish

I have no problem with freedom of worship. You are entitled to believe in whatever gods you want and worship in whatever way you choose provided it hurts no one else. zeroseven

07, are you aware of why freedom of conscience and worship is regarded as one of the fundamental freedoms? KF kairosfocus

KF, you do a lot of sobering reading. Try reading something more uplifting. Or at least funny. I recommend Irvine Welsh. zeroseven

Mike1962: Hi Mike, that premise just doesn't make sense to me. How could a baker refuse to bake a cake on moral and spiritual grounds? What do morals and spirits have to do with baking a cake? In any case the law requires that people providing goods and services don't discriminate. If the baker was Muslim would you endorse them refusing service to Jews? If the baker was black and their spiritual belief was that whites were created inferior by god, would you endorse them refusing service to white people? And why should religious/spiritual views be singled out for special treatment. You are entitled to your religious views and I am entitled to afford those views no respect whatsoever. zeroseven

CF, here is the tape, from 76:

Despite the fact that the lot of humanity consistently improves over the centuries you and your fellow travellers always believe we are on the brink of the abyss. What is it with the apocalyptic fantasies? Take a breath and smell the roses.

KF PS: I think Churchill's The Gathering Storm will be some sobering reading. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: "CF, the implication is we are on a rosy trend, indeed he went on to say go smell the roses...." No, he never said, or implied, that we are on a rosy trend. You are reading things into comments that aren't there. I have already corrected you on this. But in one respect I must agree with 07. You have to stop and smell the roses. The world is full of beautiful and wonderful things (and people). By constantly tilting at windmills, you are letting the joys of life slip you by. If you go through life with a "glass half empty" attitude, you will get exactly what you expect out of life. And that is a sad way to go through life. clown fish

CF, the implication is we are on a rosy trend, indeed he went on to say go smell the roses. The reality is as I pointed out: it is futile to say peace, safety and prosperity when the requisites are missing. Just to pick an example, one of the reasons WW II was so awful was that the general public and governance classes of leading democracies refused to face grim reality until it was too late. KF PS: And I am pointing to the GENERAL corruption of stabilising worldview, moral, cultural, social and institutional factors going back across decades and constituting a march of folly. The attempt to impose a counterfeit of marriage under false colour of law is part of a destructive pattern, not something by itself. It is comparably destructive to mass abortion because both undermine the crucial stabilising force of society, marriage and family. Mass divorce is of similar impact, as is the porn plague. But mass abortion goes beyond as it is patently the worst holocaust in history, imposing unparallelled mass bloodguilt. Just try 50 mn/y x 40 years x 1/2 to account for growth. Bloodguilt is the most corrupting influence I know. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: "CF, I responded to 07 in 76: “Despite the fact that the lot of humanity consistently improves over the centuries you and your fellow travellers always believe we are on the brink of the abyss.” My remarks are fair corrective comment in that context — especially as the issue of the inherent instability of democracy and the potential impacts of manipulated marches of folly is a material issue discussed over the course of some weeks, anchored in HISTORY rather than “apocalyptic [–> loaded word] fantasies”. KF" No, they are not fair corrective comment. 07's claim about the lot of humanity consistently improving over the centuries is accurate. Average life expectancy has increased. Infant mortality has reduced. The rights and freedoms of individuals is higher now than it has ever been. Education and health care is affordable for all. Discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation and culture is no longer tolerated. All of this in the western civilization that you keep claiming is heading over the cliff. And not just any cliff. One the result in a broken back. The fact that you are laying much of the blame of your dire predictions on SSM is just, forgive the inflammatory language, batshit crazy. clown fish

zeroseven: Take a breath and smell the roses. So I take it, if a baker refused a request on moral and spiritual grounds by a homosexual couple to make a wedding cake, that you would tell the gay cake-seekers to take a breath, smell the roses, and find a gay friendly baker, instead of pressing charges, hauling the baker into court and suing him out of business? mike1962

CF, I responded to 07 in 76: "Despite the fact that the lot of humanity consistently improves over the centuries you and your fellow travellers always believe we are on the brink of the abyss." My remarks are fair corrective comment in that context -- especially as the issue of the inherent instability of democracy and the potential impacts of manipulated marches of folly is a material issue discussed over the course of some weeks, anchored in HISTORY rather than "apocalyptic [--> loaded word] fantasies". KF PS: And BTW, there is a world of difference between imagining ourselves always on the brink and warning that in our time we are playing carelessly with some very dangerous policy, political, legal and geostrategic matches. I also suggest our demographics and debt troubles are not helpful. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: "It is ignorance of history that makes it seem that progress is inevitable and that democratic government is stable." Good job building that strawman so that you can knock it over. Maybe you should pour a little oil of red herring on it so that we can set it ablaze with the matches that we are not aware that we are playing with. Nobody has claimed that progress is inevitable. Only that change is inevitable. The fact that this change over the last few centuries, with some significant slides, has been towards the better must really rile you. clown fish

john-a-designer@63: Excellent distinction. Truth Will Set You Free

CF, you continue to ignore objective evidence and linked issues, to try to cast the problems of evolutionary materialism as simply reducible to a clash of opinions where no opinion is of any more or less weight than another. That pattern itself speaks volumes. KF kairosfocus

07, history tells us development is by no means steady or sustained. The obvious case of the collapse of the W Roman empire has other parallels, and the case of the first democracy, Athens, is instructive. It is ignorance of history that makes it seem that progress is inevitable and that democratic government is stable. It is not, democracy has been very carefully stabilised but we are now knocking out the stabilisers. Chief among those stabilisers is exactly the frame of manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law, which is so despised in "progressive" circles. The history of the Peloponnesian war and its aftermath is replete with sobering lessons; as was pointed out, also cf o/l here and lectures here. KF kairosfocus

CY: "If that is so, then I’m under no compulsion to accept any opinion that you think is true; regardless of the “copious amounts of evidence.”" That is blatantly obvious given the way that some here continue to believe in things like objective morality and ID in spite of the evidence. As the old saying goes...You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink. clown fish

What's that Shakespeare line about Sound and Fury? You guys go straight from baking cakes to Nazis without batting an eyelid! Despite the fact that the lot of humanity consistently improves over the centuries you and your fellow travellers always believe we are on the brink of the abyss. What is it with the apocalyptic fantasies? Take a breath and smell the roses. zeroseven

Clownfish said: [ That the mind exists outside of the brain is also an opinion, with no evidence to support it. Yet the hypothesis that the mind is the sum of all physical aspects of the brain (electrical, chemical, structural, etc.) is an opinion supported by copious amounts of evidence. ] That the thought exists outside the brain is an opinion, with no evidence to support it. Yet the hypothesis that the thought is the sum of all physical aspect of the brain (electrical, chemical, structural, etc.) is an opinion supported by copious amounts of evidence. If that is so, then I'm under no compulsion to accept any opinion that you think is true; regardless of the "copious amounts of evidence." CannuckianYankee

Marfin @ 38 [ So what are the limits to the message a baker can refuse put on his cake , if during ww2 a German asks a baker to put congratulation on your 10,000 jew exterminated , or what if now a guy wants to have a polygamous marriage arrangement with his son and his daughter would that be ok to write congratulations on such a close family relationship. ] But the more basic issue here; regardless of conscience is this: Is a business obligated to sell whatever a customer wants them to sell? That's really the bottom line; and the answer is "no." The government cannot compel a business to sell what it does not want to sell. The only exception might be that the selling of one product necessitates the selling of another. I.e., two products that cannot be sold separately. Or a product that must be made available for sale if the the other is for sale. Here's where the SJW's are wrong on this issue. They think that the baker issue is one of discrimination against the person requesting the gay themed cake. It's not. The issue is more fundamental than discrimination. It's freedom to bake whatever product the baker chooses to bake. He is under no obligation to bake what his customer wants. The customer is of course free to negotiate with the baker that such and such a cake be baked; but that does not obligate the baker to comply; and there is no apparent discrimination against a person involved in such a decision. Those who try to make this about discrimination of person are simply wrong. They are arguing for a fascist position, where the state now controls commerce. And these people who get on here and argue that there are no absolute values are essentially fascists. They want the government to force morality; because they believe that's the only means of achieving a civilized society; civilized meaning where the "right" groups are not offended. And they of course are among the "right" groups. Because they have no other value than that they themselves aren't displeased, they want to compel the government to please them at the expense of those who disagree. They have completely abandoned reasonable discourse, as we've seen here. The agitprop tactics we see on display here are typical of the SJW culture all around: no argument, just accusation; shaming; strawmanning; etc. It doesn't matter. The ends justify the means. And they aren't really interested in "social justice," (a term that at one time actually had meaning). It's now just a buzz word for shaming those with a different viewpoint. CannuckianYankee

Kairosfocus: "The oh that’s just an opinion, in that context, simply fails." How is it less of an opinion simply because there are other people who agree with you? There are many people who believe that 9/11 was orchestrated by George Bush and his cronies, and that vaccines cause autism, and that the moon landing was faked. Simply because they have fellow travellers who believe the same crack-pot idea does not make it true. That the mind exists outside of the brain is also an opinion, with no evidence to support it. Yet the hypothesis that the mind is the sum of all physical aspects of the brain (electrical, chemical, structural, etc.) is an opinion supported by copious amounts of evidence. Similarly, that morality is objective is an opinion with little evidence to support it other than wishful thinking, but the hypothesis that morality is subjective is an opinion with evidence to support it that goes back thousands of years. The fact that you must perform mental and logistic gymnastics in order to establish some shred of logical legitimacy for an objective morality should tell you something. clown fish

Here is an example of where moral subjectivism can lead.

“Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong.” I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself – what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself” ”that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any “reason” to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring “” the strength of character “” to throw off its shackles. … I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others…

https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2010/10/morality-without-god-would-i-care/#comment-24049 I recognize that not every subjectivist is going to reach the same conclusions and act the same way as Bundy. The point is that from the view point of subjectivism there is nothing wrong with his reasoning, because there is no right or wrong. His logic is airtight. Is it not? If he is right there is no basis for human rights, because there is no such thing as moral obligation. Do you think I am being extreme for citing Ted Bundy as an example? While I would hate for there to be more Ted Bundy’s, I think his thinking on moral subjectivism was less dangerous than the subjectivism that is presently infecting society. Bundy wasn’t trying to affect or change society as a whole, he was only trying to justify or rationalize his own contemptible behavior. Of course, our moral subjectivist interlocutors could respond by giving us some examples of evil absolutists. Okay, go ahead try that. See where it all leads. john_a_designer

Kairosfocus, at start, refs https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-cf-and-mark-victor-tushne-on-victory-in-the-culture-wars/ ------------------- "Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, “harm”] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]" ------------------ I fully support your stance. As you said then KF: "God, have mercy on us." A question arises; it appears somewhat hypocritical to rebuke atheists and others, when the majority of Christians do not love God with all their heart, strength, soul and mind, that is, when He clearly said He created in six days? Ref Jesus (Matt 15: 3-9). If we break one law we break them all (James 2:10). And, if we elasticate one law, we can elasticate them all. If one law is deemed flawed the rest will follow. Atheists see such standards. Many Christians and pro Darwinist Christians, see such; compromise or leave altogether the faith, while those who may have entered, see little reason to do so. mw

Clown Fish

However, others will have different moral values (than mine) that are just as deeply held. The best explanation for all of this, as observation and history suggest, is that our moral values are subjective.

No. The best explanation is this: If a man's behavior does not conform to a moral principle, he will soon find a moral principle that conforms to his behavior. StephenB

CF, the context in which evolutionary materialism gives rise to the conclusion that morality is delusion is well known, namely that it has in it no world root level IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT. So, Ruse and Wilson, on these premises, are right. Likewise, it runs into problems with mindedness for many reasons long since well known. Haldane for just one instance observes:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]

Such can be drawn out at length but it is hardly necessary. The problems are inherent to trying to build a world on blindly interacting matter and energy across space and time. They are inherent to the view, as has been known from the days of Plato 2350 years ago. The oh that's just an opinion, in that context, simply fails. Indeed, we are entitled to take it to mean, you have no substantial answer but wish to brush aside the issue. KF kairosfocus

Do neo-Nazi’s have a legal constitutional right to their political beliefs? (Whether you like it or not, they do.) Does that mean I am legally and morally obligated to affirm or support their rights? For example, does a baker have a right to refuse to bake a cake with a swastika on it? National Review decided to do a little experiment back in 2014 to see what bakers would do if they were asked.

Keep in mind that the bakeries that got in trouble — Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado and Sweet Cakes in Oregon — did not refuse service because of their customers’ sexual orientation, but because of ethical opposition to participating in a particular act, namely a same-sex wedding. Judges in both cases declared the bakeries had unjustly discriminated and delivered an ultimatum: Bake the cake or else. National Review wanted to find out what happens when you ask a bakery for a sugary tribute to an institution just about nobody likes. Would bakeries be willing to make a cake with a Nazi swastika on it? This was done not in an effort to imply some false moral equivalency between Nazism and same-sex marriage, but rather to show that bakers may have good faith objections even to reproducing a symbol.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372650/why-bakers-should-be-free-discriminate-alec-torres All the bakeries they approached passed on providing a neo-Nazi cake. Should they be sued? Is there a difference between political and religious freedom of conscience? I don’t see that there is. john_a_designer

Kairosfocus, all you have demonstrated is that there is a differing of opinions. But we already knew this. clown fish

Andre: "When will supposed pretend moral subjectivists realize if morality is indeed subjective there is no good or evil, just personal opinions..." Since good and bad are subjective, and since evil is a theistic concept, I don't see what your point is. "...on matters and when will they realize that their opinions are not above or better or more moral than those that differ in said opinions?" And how is this different that what we observe on a daily basis? clown fish

When will supposed pretend moral subjectivists realize if morality is indeed subjective there is no good or evil, just personal opinions on matters and when will they realize that their opinions are not above or better or more moral than those that differ in said opinions? The mind boggles on their utter lack of coherence, intellectual honesty, logic and reason..... Andre

CF, The oh that's YOUR opinion rhetorical tactic fails. It also reveals that you have not seriously assessed the evidence already in hand, from Ruse, Wilson and Crick et al, not to mention a wide range of very serious discussion that starts with the hard problem of consciousness. Let's roll the tape from 49 above only a little while earlier today, Ruse and Wilson:

The time has come to take seriously the fact [[–> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological [–> actually, evolutionary materialist] position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. [Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991. ] –> Acknowledge the problem, or else repudiate it with proper reasons

And from Crick in 50 above:

Similar on the broader context of delusions rooted in evo mat, Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis: . . . that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing. –> Again, acknowledge the problem, whether in this form or any one of ever so many others, or else repudiate it with solid reasons.

No, you cannot dodge the issue so cheaply as that. KF kairosfocus

Just to clarify something, at least in all the cases I have looked at, the Christian baker, photographer or florist did not refuse to provide their services to gays because they were gay. Indeed, they knowingly provided such services (flowers, baked goods, photographs) to customers they knew were gay in the past. They were only refusing their services when providing those services conflicted with their religious beliefs or convictions. Marriage and weddings are full of religious significance for religions people. We believe that marriage is God’s idea. So the question is not about selling generic baked goods, flowers etc. That they would have gladly done that. Frankly it is disingenuous, if not blatantly dishonest, to argue that the secular-progressive left is bringing lawsuits in the interest of equality and human rights. Persecuting people because of their religious beliefs and trying to undermine their freedom of conscience is not treating their rights as equal, nor does it do anything to advance the cause of human rights. john_a_designer

Materialists-atheists accept nature as all that is, no exceptions. At the same time they reject nature and use exceptions for basis of their moral values. Eugen

BA: Seversky asserts that the Holocaust was evil only “in my opinion.” Then he asks “Isn’t that enough?” If he really cannot see the Holocaust was truly and absolutely evil, then he is blind, and we cannot fault him nor help him. If he does see that it was evil, and denies it, he is a liar. When the sun is shining in your face and you deny it, you're either blind or a liar. Not much left to say about such a person. mike1962

Clownfish I could have easily said hutu`s or tutsi`s re atrocities,instead of nazi`s but that`s hardly the point. Are you saying that governments decide what is and is not acceptable from a moral standpoint , because if incest becomes legal, or if the Canadian government say its is or is not ok then thats our benchmark for morality. Please tell me your are just acting the goat and this is not a serious answer.Please tell me that you don`t believe that if your government says its ok it must be ok. If you believe in evolution there can be no morality for if evolution is the creative force for everything, then it created the man who gives to the poor and is kind to his elderly neighbour, and offerers his life in the service of others , but it also created rapists, paedophiles, racists,bigots,murderers, for evolution does not discriminated by anything but survival so if these traits on both sides are here today evolution created them without partiality or prejudice. Marfin

KairosFocus: "The fundamental issue is on ev mat morality is delusion,..." That is your opinion. Subjective morality is every bit as real as objective morality. It may be "wrong" or not sustainable in a society, but it is certainly no delusion. Or, at least, no more so that our subjective interpretation of objective morality has been (assuming that objective morality exists). "... conscience is delusion,..." Again, this is just your opinion. Conscience, whether it is the result of objective morality or subjective reality, is real. We all experience it. And it is not inconsistent with ev/mat. "... mind is delusion,..." This does not follow from ev/mat either. The mind is still poorly understood, but there is no evidence yet found to suggest that it involves any type of extra corporeal action. "...responsible rational freedom is delusion,.." Well, the jury is still out on whether our freedom (free will) is responsible and rational. :) But free will is not incompatible with ev/mat. The problem with free will is that it is virtually impossible to test for. Every thought and action is preceded by chemical reactions in the brain. What this means, I don't know. "...man is delusion." Man may be deluded, but he certainly isn't a delusion. "But such absurdities are not being seriously addressed because of the current balance of might and manipulation games and the lab coat." They are not being seriously addressed because they are not seriously considered as the necessary outcome of ev/mat. Besides, what is this obsession you have with lab coats. I wore one for thirty years and it did a great job at keeping sulphuric acid and other nasties off my arms and cloths. clown fish

Forcing a private bakery to make a cake for homosexuals is an outrageous attack on individual liberty, and an ominous sign of things to come. Things are going to get much worse...for everyone. BTW, excellent points Kairosfocus. Truth Will Set You Free

All of this, is feel-good with the implicit YET. The fundamental issue is on ev mat morality is delusion, conscience is delusion, mind is delusion, responsible rational freedom is delusion, man is delusion. Man is dead. But such absurdities are not being seriously addressed because of the current balance of might and manipulation games and the lab coat. kairosfocus

JAD: "Is the agenda of the secular progressive left really to advance the cause of equal rights or is it undermine religious liberty and freedom of conscience? I would argue that it’s the latter." It is the former. Religious rights (and rites) are still protected. Selling cakes, flowers and photographs are not religious rights (or rites), they are services that are provided to the general population. Doctors fall in the gray zone. No doctor is required by law to perform an abortion or prescribe birth control (in Canada). They may refuse to do so under religious protection. Although I support this position for abortion, in which the doctor is actively performing the abortion, I disagree with it for contraceptives. The doctor is only prescribing them. He/she is not directly involved in the patient's decision to use them. My belief is that the doctors role here is to ensure that the patient is informed of any risks associated with using contraceptives. However, even for doctors, freedom of conscience is not absolute. If an emergency room physician is a Jehova's Witness, he/she cannot refuse to provide a blood transfusion. Church officials are not being required to preside over SSM (although some do). Churches are not required to rent out church halls for SSM, although this might be on shaky ground if they rent out their halls for any other function without restriction. clown fish

CF, you are simply denying. Notice, Ruse and Wilson. KF kairosfocus

A few things to keep in mind:

Traditionally and historically marriage has deeply religious significance for Christians, Jews as well as people of other faiths. Weddings are religious rites—r-i-t-e-s. The state has no interest in compelling or restricting (except perhaps in genuinely extreme cases like infant sacrifice*) a religious rite. To do so is to run afoul of the establishment clause.

A question to keep in mind: Is the agenda of the secular progressive left really to advance the cause of equal rights or is it undermine religious liberty and freedom of conscience? I would argue that it’s the latter. *An exception that John Locke noted. john_a_designer

Kairosfocus: "CF, you are applying nominalism, are emptying ought of its proper meaning and are substituting a very different meaning. One that boils down to the conscience-attested sense that we are under binding obligation to the right, the true etc is delusion. KF" No, the meaning of OUGHT has not changed. Whether the moral values are objective or subjective, OUGHT remains the same. clown fish

Marfin: "So what are the limits to the message a baker can refuse put on his cake , if during ww2 a German asks a baker to put congratulation on your 10,000 jew exterminated ,..." I was wondering when Nazis would be brought into the argument. I suspect if a baker in Germany during WWII refused to write "Congratulations on your 10,000 Jew Exterminated" on a cake requested by a Nazi, the next baker would write "Congratulations for your 10,000 Jew and first Baker Exterminated." "...or what if now a guy wants to have a polygamous marriage arrangement with his son and his daughter would that be ok to write congratulations on such a close family relationship." Ask me again when polygamous incest is legalized. "Can any atheist please tell me where the boundaries start and finish and on what basis do they come to these conclusions." I am not familiar with the wording of the US State laws on this, but in Canada, anyone in the service industry may not refuse to provide services to someone based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. That seems fairly clear to me. clown fish

Seversky asserts that the Holocaust was evil only “in my opinion.” Then he asks “Isn’t that enough?” No, Sev, it is not enough. You might as well have said “Holocausts are not to my taste, but I acknowledge that someone else might have a different taste.” Something is very wrong when your moral nihilism reduces you to thinking about the “Holocaust-Peace on Earth” choice in the same terms as the “Chocolate-Vanilla” choice. You know for an absolute certainty that the choices are not in the same category. Yet you are forced by your premises to pretend that they are. Here’s a clue Sev. When your premises force you to affirm a position that no sane person would affirm, perhaps you should reject those premises. Barry Arrington

PPS: Similar on the broader context of delusions rooted in evo mat, Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis:

. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.

--> Again, acknowledge the problem, whether in this form or any one of ever so many others, or else repudiate it with solid reasons. kairosfocus

PS: Ruse and Wilson:

If you doubt this conclusion, let us hear it from Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson in their 1991 essay, “The Evolution of Ethics”: The time has come to take seriously the fact [[--> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological [--> actually, evolutionary materialist] position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. [Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991. ]

--> Acknowledge the problem, or else repudiate it with proper reasons kairosfocus

CF, you are applying nominalism, are emptying ought of its proper meaning and are substituting a very different meaning. One that boils down to the conscience-attested sense that we are under binding obligation to the right, the true etc is delusion. KF kairosfocus

KairosFocus: "Do you not see that you are arguing AS IF truth was something we OUGHT to pursue and OUGHT to respect?" Do you have a serious reading comprehension problem? I have repeatedly said that we are governed by OUGHT. That we act as if our morals are objective. Yet you continue to counter my arguments with this silly IS/OUGHT nonsense. My moral values are very strongly held. They govern many of the things I do. I believe that others OUGHT to comply with my moral values. And I will argue and lobby to try to achieve this. However, others will have different moral values that are just as deeply held. The best explanation for all of this, as observation and history suggest, is that our moral values are subjective. The fact that we think others should agree with our moral values is not evidence for objective values, it is just evidence that humans can be very pig-headed and stubborn, and self-centred. "Do you not realise that manifest hardness against oughtness regarding truth and right is a very bad sign?" You really have to work on your reading comprehension. Your continuing insistence on disagreeing with me about our government by OUGHTness when I have repeatedly stated that I agree with you on our government by OUGHTness suggests that some unhealthy pathology is at work. "Do you not see why it is evident that this will not end well?" That is not evident at all. By almost all measures available, the human condition has improved over the last few centuries. "For individuals and communities alike, then our civilisation as a whole?" Yes, our civilization is changing, as it has been doing since we climbed down from the trees. Change is inevitable. You either try to fight it, and lose, or you make an effort to play a part in the change. I chose the latter. clown fish

Barry Arrington@ 30

There you go using that word “terrible” as if it means that the Nazis were objectively terrible. But if morality is in the eye of the beholder, then when the Nazis beheld their death camps they beheld a moral enterprise.

That's right. If I wanted to be more precise I should have said "in my opinion" And, yes, there were no doubt Nazis who beheld their camps and deemed it a moral enterprise. Just as all the inmates looked out at their captors and took the opposite view, as did most of the rest of the world. As, I'm sure, do you and me and everyone else here. Isn't that enough? Seversky

WJM (& attn Seversky), when the denial of a premise P directly ends in absurdity, one would be well advised to reject ~P and accept P. In this case, that P accurately describes a real state of affairs. Where as this is accessible to all in principle it is objective. Well warranted and credibly so, but of course in principle open to correction i/l/o further reasoning. However in these cases, the sort of warrant on pain of absurdity makes such unlikely. In the case of moral government under OUGHT attested by conscience, the attempted denial leads straight to radical undermining of the life of the mind, as conscience is guide and guard to reasoning, choosing and rights/duties etc. If conscience on the whole be a delusion, all our inner life is instantly tainted and rendered delusional. That is what subjectivists refuse to face. KF kairosfocus

Seversky @ 29 said:

So your strongest argument against the subjectivity of morality is that subjectivists behave as if its objective and you resent what you assume to be hypocrisy?

I don't resent the hypocrisy of self-identified moral subjectivists at all; I'm just pointing it out. I'm not assuming their hypocrisy, they have admitted here that they believe morality is subjective while they act as if it is objective. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy; saying you believe that X is true while acting as if X is not true.

That’s pretty feeble for a master logician.

It would be if that was indeed my "strongest argument", but like others here you do not address the strongest arguments presented. No, you avoid addressing the hard questions and implications and instead find things you think you can score sentimental points with. Also, I appreciate that you consider me a "master logician", but it doesn't take a master logician to see the gaping holes, self-contradictions, hand-waving and hypocrisy of the subjectivist position and defense.

Football players during a game behave as if they are bound by the rules of the sport, for all intents and purposes as if they are objective. Yet is anyone here arguing that the rules of football are anything other than an entirely arbitrary cultural construct? Or are you that far gone that you think American football was divinely ordained?

This is how I can tell that you and others haven't really given these concepts much thought. You throw things out in defense of subjectivism that not only do not make your case, but actually reveal the strength of the opposing case. Nobody behaves as if morality is an "entirely arbitrary social construct". Nobody, other than sociopaths, behave as if morality is analogous to the rules of a "game".

Whatever you might believe, you don’t have a monopoly of logic or morality.

What a strange thing to say. Anyone can use logic to examine propositions and inferences derived from them, so you're right, I don't have a monopoly on logic. I don't know what it would even mean to claim a monopoly on morality. Since I consider it and objective commodity, I believe that everyone with a conscience has access to it, even if they believe what they are experiencing is entrely subjective.

Your insistence on the objectivity of morality, like everyone else who takes your part, is not about any old morality but your specific version or morality.

I think you're just venting something here that has to do with some stereotype you imagine my argument to be about. There really are not that many categorical forms of "objective morality" in the world to argue for or against. I rationally reject any command authority form of objective morality because it has as many fundamental problems as subjective morality. I instead argue for natural law based, logically consistent morality that provides everyone with a conscience and good reasoning skills good access to objective moral information. So, I am arguing for that "specific" form of moral objectivism - the natural law, conscience as sensory capacity, rationally coherent moral objectivism - which is what the USA was founded on - but beyond that, I don't have any specific "moral system" I am arguing for.

It’s an attempt to establish that your morality – and yours alone – is the one true morality a position which could warrant imposing it on others. In other words, it’s a blatant bid for political power.

To be fair natural law objective morality was what the country and our laws were established on in the first place, and it is through better reasoning about what that natural law necessarily implies that many social reforms have come about, such as the abolishment of slavery and equal rights for women and minorities. As far as imposing my particular moral views on others and it being a "blatant bid for political power", that is indeed what we all do because, in our hearts, we all consider our moral views that important and objectively valid. That is why people argue and attempt to get laws changed or attempt to change the behavior of others. We certainly do not behave as if we are playing a game. And make no mistake, passing anti-discrimination laws or civil rights laws is every bit as much a case of imposing morality via political power as were the discriminatory or religion-based laws that preceded them.

The reality is that you cannot demonstrate the objectivity of morality any more than you can demonstrate the reality of beauty.

I've never said I could, and I've never made the argument that morality is in fact objective in nature. My argument is not and has never been that morality is factually objective in nature, only that there is no alternative to that premise which can provide a rational, sustainable, sound moral framework that accurately describes our moral behavior and allows for rationally coherent and meaningful moral arguments. Natural law moral objectivism is the only sound premise that can support the notion of universal, inviolable human rights, metaphysical equality and the inner capacity of all sane humans to perceive and reason through objective moral information on their own. It provides the only sound basis for moral interventions and a just system of law.

They’re both in the eye of the beholder, in other words, us.

When you are capable of acting as if morality is categorically the same as beauty, then you'll have a valid analogy here. Until then, you're just being a hypocrite and deceiving yourself with that absurd comparison. William J Murray

Hi Clown Fish # 35: ------------ "A very wise man once told me that it’s not name calling if it is true." ------------ Truth, Darwin implied, is his theory; saying, the Judaeo-Christian God is erroneous" p 6 “Origin.” Today, his cake is dished out everywhere in education and no dissent is allowed, is that moral education? Surely, in light of other evidence, Darwin’s cake a flat cake, unleavened, devoid of a transitional fossil, dismayed ‘baker of origins' Darwin. His ingredients complete with a total lobotomy on artificial selection, yet being imagined as a glorious bake by the natural selector in a work pond, which grew into every life form on the Earth. Jack and the beanstalk could have not done better. Darwin implied the recipe of life given by the Judaeo-Christian God was immoral because Darwin could not understand suffering. So he sacked Him, saying: “By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.” (Barlow, Nora ed. 1958. The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow. London: Collins) http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1497&pageseq=1 How in the world any Christian can follow the main pillars of ‘Lord Charlies’ decrees, is beyond me. Indeed, a very wise man said he was the truth (Jn 14:6), one in essence with his Father, the truth (Jn 17:17) and one with the Holy Spirit, also the truth (Jn 14:17). Another ‘wise’ man; proclaiming ‘Darwin for Christ,’ said; science has proved original sin is not true. (Lamoreux, D.O., Beyond Original Sin: Is a theological paradigm shift inevitable? Perspectives on Science and Christian Belief 67(1):35-49, March 2015; asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2015/PSCF3-15Lamoureux.pdf. http://creation.com/beyond-original-sin) It appears, therefore, Jesus got himself crucified for two mythical creatures, doing a mythical wrong, and Jesus, therefore, makes scripture basically insane, and redundant. However, Pilate said to Jesus, “what is truth.” Surely, truth equals morality, and some believe it was stirring Pilate in the face. The God of truth, who once and for all; having the mind that does not err, set down once and for all, what is right and wrong. A belief of course, but with some startling eye witnessed and documented evidence of something beyond material science: enough ‘unbelievable’ evidence to convince some people. Therefore, Clown Fish, considering the entire objective eye witnessed documented evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, which Darwin dismissed out of hand; whose teaching do you think a Judaeo-Christian should courteously and morally uphold; one baked with animals through Darwinism, or one raised through Sinai and the Divinity of Jesus? mw

F/N: From the OP:

Here’s the problem in for those that wish to interact with Aleta, Zeroseven and Clown Fish: it is utterly unimportant to them that their worldview, statements and behavior be logically consistent. This is why it simply doesn’t bother them to admit that they are hypocrites – insisting on one thing (that morality is subjective) while behaving the opposite way (like morality is objective), and why they keep raising objections that have already been thoroughly refuted (like morality is subjective because people don’t agree about it). They do not enter conversations with a critical rationalism that they may be wrong about morality being subjective; they “know” it is subjective. Since they are not “logicians” and don’t care if their logic is in error, what good is rationally demonstrating the logical errors in their views? Their idea that morality is subjective is not based on any logical examination of their worldview premises leading to inferences then to rational explanations for actual behavior; it is based solely on sentiment – an emotional rejection of what objective morality would mean (theism), and personal sentiments about other people and their behaviors. You cannot prove someone wrong about their subjective sentiments no matter how irrational or hypocritical those sentiments are. You cannot logically argue someone out of a faulty view if they didn’t come to that view via logic and if they do not consider logic a valid arbiter of truth.

Sobering thoughts. I suggest, the surrender of principles of factual accuracy and adequacy and coherence is a shifting to irrationality and manipulation. Nihilism, in one word. Those who discard reason and set out on a ruthless agenda are engaging in a march of folly that if unchecked will not end well. Let us hope that there are enough out there who will wake up to the danger in time that those trying to push such agendas will first find themselves sufficiently exposed and discredited that they will realise they cannot get away with such things. Then, maybe enough will wake up to the fallacies and damaging consequences that the agenda can be decisively stopped then utterly discredited. Failing such, we are headed for an awful crash. I confess, I am not optimistic. KF PS: WJM, I would use rationality rather than rationalism. kairosfocus

Headlined: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/fyi-ftr-but-arent-marriage-race-and-rights-just-words/ kairosfocus

CF, wrenching a term like marriage out of its natural context and imposing a distortion under false colour of law has not created a new form of marriage. It only reveals that those who do it are in the grips of a nominalism that cannot recognise the manifestly evident core principles of the moral laws of our nature. That extreme nominalism then leads to an attempt to impose the notion that might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'value,' 'meaning,' 'sex,' etc under false colour of law. This is nihilistic lawfare. The only limit for the moment to such a process in the minds of those caught up in this, is what they think they can get away with for the moment. The watershed-wedge is at work, the divide, polarise and ruin dynamic is underway, and the end of this is a shatteringly hard impact with rock-bottom reality. In the meanwhile, it is manifest that marriage does not mean what is being imposed at the point of the usurped sword of justice, but the corruption of society, media, education, courts and parliaments to achieve this points to the ruin of our civilisation. As the very simple fact that only yesterday, such was only whispered in the corners of radical advocacy itself indicates: this is nothing connected to the nature of persons [utterly unlike racial characteristics such as skin colour and hair texture or facial features], it is a matter of institutionalising corrupt behaviour under false colour of law. This is the hijacking of a genuine reform based on manifest principles of the natural moral law, so that what cannot stand on its own two feet can domineer and ride in a bizarre piggyback that gives it a false colour of legitimacy. Shameless, cynical and utterly disgraceful. Heedless wrecking of our civilisation. But then in the minds of those caught up in the red, double green de facto alliance, Western Civilisation is the problem. What is wrong with the world. They do not realise the matches they are playing with, or the geostrategic consequences, nor do they care. Reason is dead, rage running amok through lawfare is the engine, agit-prop manipulation is the driver. The juggernaut is rolling. Let us again hear cultural marxist strategic thinker and Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet on where the agenda is going:

The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they [= conservatives] were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars [–> lawfare, the usurpation of the sword of justice to impose a ruthless agenda, is an outright act of war] . . . For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) [–> notice, the revealing and sadly familiar pattern of invidious, tainting comparatives on offer: slavery, racism, nazism, aggressive imperialism . . . telling us a LOT about the hostility and slanderous projection we are dealing with, this professor needs to publicly apologise and retract with a serious mea culpa based explanation, starting with this point] I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.

Ruthless, nihilistic, abusive factionalism that does not hesitate before usurping the sword of justice. Heedless, that such is headed for an awful crash. Behind, lies the growing legacy of the manipulation of the same institutions and the same deadening of conscience -- the guide and guard of reason -- in order to effect a situation where under false colour of law upwards of 50 million unborn children are slaughtered every year, in the worst holocaust in history. To see, just multiply that number by 40 years, and then by 1/2 to account for growth. Of this some 60 millions are the American "contribution," half a generation killed in the womb. Ask yourself, why is it that such matters are almost totally absent from the headlines. Think, about what that tells us on how our major media -- eyes and ears of the community -- are utterly riddled with corrupt, cynical agit prop agendas and tactics. Then, ponder how bloodguilt is on massive evidence of history the most corrupting influence of all. Ponder, how such bloodguilt is now widely pervasive across our whole civilisation. Look, at how language is corrupted to carry it forward: 'reproductive rights,' 'choice' and more. Ponder, how law has been corrupted and how lawfare has been let loose in defence of a gross evil against the first right of all, life. Ponder, how corrupt our governments have necessarily become as a consequence. Then, it is no wonder at all to see that other things are being subjected to the same conscience-benumbed cynical nihilistic nominalism under false colour of law. Other points follow in the same vein. This will not end well. KF kairosfocus

Marfin, the limit is what they think they can get away with. KF kairosfocus

So what are the limits to the message a baker can refuse put on his cake , if during ww2 a German asks a baker to put congratulation on your 10,000 jew exterminated , or what if now a guy wants to have a polygamous marriage arrangement with his son and his daughter would that be ok to write congratulations on such a close family relationship. Can any atheist please tell me where the boundaries start and finish and on what basis do they come to these conclusions. Marfin

Headlined: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-conscience-is-a-gift/ kairosfocus

CF, Re:

A very wise man once told me that it’s not name calling if it is true.

The namecalling is of course not true, but that is not the most important thing at this point. You and your ilk have so often indulged in red herrings led away to strawman caricatures laced with ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse polarise and taint the atmosphere that we know to discount such tactics to zero credit. But something else is at work, something soberingly revealing. Do you not see that you are arguing AS IF truth was something we OUGHT to pursue and OUGHT to respect? That, you assume and expect that others will recognise as something they ought to pursue and respect? Do you not see that this again reflects the underlying issues -- that OUGHT-ness is a real, accurately perceived, binding condition of our moral government (not a delusion) -- that you and your ilk routinely rhetorically deride and disregard when it suits you? Do you not see that this tells us that your views show the precise incoherence and patent reductions to absurdity that have been highlighted but have been rhetorically dismissed or studiously ignored, strawmannised and derided over and over again? Do you not realise that manifest hardness against oughtness regarding truth and right is a very bad sign? Do you not see why it is evident that this will not end well? For individuals and communities alike, then our civilisation as a whole? I strongly suggest, think again:

Conscience, is a gift. Guilt, is a mercy. Repentance, is a grace. Renewal and reformation, are hopes.

Perhaps, even at this late stage for a civilisation that has so obviously lost its way, something positive can be done before it is utterly too late. KF kairosfocus

Barry: "BTW, all that name calling is not very tolerant. Isn’t your side the one that is supposed to have a monopoly on tolerance?" A very wise man once told me that it's not name calling if it is true. clown fish

Trumped: "Perfect point and very valid….so just take your business to someone who values your values then… why on Gods great earth would you try to silence someone for standing up for their beliefs?" And why didn't the black teens go eat at a diner that allowed blacks? Why force the owners and operators of the diner to do something that went against their beliefs? clown fish

Sev:

All they were asked to do was to bake a cake

False. The baker in Master Baker, a case in which I have filed an amicus brief, would have been happy to bake a cake. The government has forced him to use his artistic talent to decorate the cake and write things that celebrate a ceremony that is inimical to his religious beliefs. It is the forced artistic expression, not the mere baking of a case, that is objectionable. Sev, you really should make an effort to understand the basic facts of a matter before you comment on it, especially if you are going to call people hateful names. BTW, all that name calling is not very tolerant. Isn't your side the one that is supposed to have a monopoly on tolerance? Barry Arrington

Sev "Logic is the arbiter of a valid argument, nothing more" Sev, although logic cannot tell us what is true can it tell us what cannot be true? Vivid vividbleau

john_a_designer @ 9

But is forcing a baker who has deeply held religious beliefs, about what is/is not marriage, to bake a wedding cake a gay couple’s only option? What’s wrong with simply finding another baker? As far as I can see nothing. That’s known as accommodation and tolerance, as well as courtesy. Christian Doctors, for example, cannot be forced to perform abortions if they are personally oppose them for moral or religious reasons. Why can’t the same accommodation be extended to religious wedding vendors?

Those bakers were not being forced to officiate at a SSM ceremony, they were not being forced to attend said ceremony and they were not being forced to officially endorse SSM. All they were asked to do was to bake a cake and instead of displaying the Christian virtues of charity and compassion that they are supposed to live by, they chose sanctimonious bigotry. Suppose that those bakers had belonged to some sort of fundamentalist Lutheran sect that endorsed the rabid anti-Semitism of Martin Luther's On The Jews And Their Lies. Suppose it had been a Jewish couple who had asked for a cake and been tossed out on their ears because they were Jewish. Would that have been a valid exercise of religious freedom? Seversky

Sev:

The reality is that you cannot demonstrate the objectivity of morality any more than you can demonstrate the reality of beauty. They’re both in the eye of the beholder, in other words, us.

But then:

Need I point out that the views of the millions who died at the hands of the Nazis were never sought by that terrible regime.

There you go using that word "terrible" as if it means that the Nazis were objectively terrible. But if morality is in the eye of the beholder, then when the Nazis beheld their death camps they beheld a moral enterprise. Sev, you can't keep your argument straight over the course of two paragraphs. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously. Barry Arrington

Here’s the problem in for those that wish to interact with Aleta, Zeroseven and Clown Fish: it is utterly unimportant to them that their worldview, statements and behavior be logically consistent. This is why it simply doesn’t bother them to admit that they are hypocrites – insisting on one thing (that morality is subjective) while behaving the opposite way (like morality is objective), and why they keep raising objections that have already been thoroughly refuted (like morality is subjective because people don’t agree about it).

So your strongest argument against the subjectivity of morality is that subjectivists behave as if its objective and you resent what you assume to be hypocrisy? That's pretty feeble for a master logician. Football players during a game behave as if they are bound by the rules of the sport, for all intents and purposes as if they are objective. Yet is anyone here arguing that the rules of football are anything other than an entirely arbitrary cultural construct? Or are you that far gone that you think American football was divinely ordained?

They do not enter conversations with a critical rationalism that they may be wrong about morality being subjective; they “know” it is subjective. Since they are not “logicians” and don’t care if their logic is in error, what good is rationally demonstrating the logical errors in their views? Their idea that morality is subjective is not based on any logical examination of their worldview premises leading to inferences then to rational explanations for actual behavior; it is based solely on sentiment – an emotional rejection of what objective morality would mean (theism), and personal sentiments about other people and their behaviors.

Whatever you might believe, you don't have a monopoly of logic or morality. Your insistence on the objectivity of morality, like everyone else who takes your part, is not about any old morality but your specific version or morality. It's an attempt to establish that your morality - and yours alone - is the one true morality a position which could warrant imposing it on others. In other words, it's a blatant bid for political power. The reality is that you cannot demonstrate the objectivity of morality any more than you can demonstrate the reality of beauty. They're both in the eye of the beholder, in other words, us.

You cannot prove someone wrong about their subjective sentiments no matter how irrational or hypocritical those sentiments are. You cannot logically argue someone out of a faulty view if they didn’t come to that view via logic and if they do not consider logic a valid arbiter of truth.

Logic is the arbiter of a valid argument, nothing more. We both know it's perfectly possible to construct a valid argument that is complete nonsense. If you want truth, what matters is the content of the premises. Any valid logical argument can be attacked on those grounds.

Without believing there is a truth by which some views can be considered erroneous, there is no valid corrective by which one can think they should correct their view. It’s just their personal, sentimental view of how things are, and they do not have to justify that view because there is – in their mind – no objective truth to such matters, and logic is not an arbiter of any real, objective truths.

By the correspondence theory of truth moral propositions are neither true nor false because they are prescriptive not descriptive. They are about 'ought' not 'is'. The only warrant that is required by a moral code is that it has been negotiated by and assented to by all the people who will choose to be subject to it. Need I point out that the views of the millions who died at the hands of the Nazis were never sought by that terrible regime. If anything, it's a hideous lesson abut what can happen when one group gets to impose their version of morality on all others. I am as certain that the victims of the Holocaust would never have assented to their fate as I am that the family and friends of the victim of a psychopath would agree that his version of morality was as valid as theirs. That is what stands between us and the maniacs or anarchy or nihilism. Seversky

@clown #18 "A baker, florist and photographer are providing a service, a commodity, a product, that has no official and legal status. They do not legally require any acknowledged training. Their is no “college” of bakers, florists, photographers that they must belong to and are governed by. Their signatures do not appear on marriage certificates." Perfect point and very valid....so just take your business to someone who values your values then... why on Gods great earth would you try to silence someone for standing up for their beliefs? I get it, you can't be A-moral in this situation... an activists view is never about balance...nor about truth... So what if you can't find a local baker to bake a gay-cake? take it to the next town...or the next if you still cant find one.... maybe that should be a good indicator that something is askew here. Trumper

KairosFocus: "The perversion of marriage, sex and family under false colour of law are all seriously morally dubious behaviours, and bear no comparison whatsoever to race. Really? What were these arguments made to try to prevent? I numbered them to keep in the spirit of our discussions. 1 --> "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage." 2 --> "This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil." 3 --> "State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America." 4 --> "“It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.” 5 --> "This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong." 6 --> "This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral." 7 --> "This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us." 8 --> "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man." 9 --> "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage." clown fish

EvilSnack, ”Since subjectivist ethics cannot be falsified, doesn’t that make them non-scientific, and therefore worthy only of utter rejection?” Indeed, it is completely absurd, if not foolish, for an admitted moral subjectivist to use bait-and-switch tactics to begin arguing about rights as if they were now objective. Rights based on what? On whom? Who does he think he’s fooling? But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is fooling himself. john_a_designer

ES, actually, such ethics reduce to self referential incoherence and/or to might/manipulation makes right nihilism. Such will not end well for our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

CF, The perversion of marriage, sex and family under false colour of law are all seriously morally dubious behaviours, and bear no comparison whatsoever to race. The tactics at work, from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

That's before we get to the studiously ignored issue of the cultural marxist subversion of law, institutions and culture and its utterly destructive impact. Which is what is now quite openly going on. Such will not end well for our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

@ BA #6 - Saying so don't make it so.... maybe you can enlighten me please..... TIA I'll do my part to better explain my simplistic view of why shutting down a private bakery can be somewhat like the burning of the two structures in my example so you might better see that point. no bakery. = no cakes that either LGBT or non-LGBT folks can partake of. you might say that denial of a cake is the same thing from an LGBT view... I would say you are sadly mistaken as that denial if of just one cake and not all that the bakery has to offer. The point then becomes the ability to force one to deny their core beliefs and comply to something they are not for. there was a much smarter path that could of been taken there. Are we getting more remote now? Trumper

Since subjectivist ethics cannot be falsified, doesn't that make them non-scientific, and therefore worthy only of utter rejection? EvilSnack

KairosFocus: "CF, there you go again, conflating race with morally dubious behaviour. That insistence speaks for itself. KF" And what morally dubious behaviour are you referring to? I thought we were talking about marriage. clown fish

KairosFocus: "CF, you are simply digging in deeper with more and more projections and personalities." If you can't address the substance of the issue, attacking the person is a poor argument. But if that is all you have, I guess you have to go with your strengths. You still have not addressed the fact that your example has an almost identical parallel to the Woolworth's diner. clown fish

CF, there you go again, conflating race with morally dubious behaviour. That insistence speaks for itself. KF kairosfocus

JAD: "So when a committed and active Christian florist, baker or photographer is sued for not participating in a SSM wedding ceremony you are in fact trying to coerce a Christian priest (no scare quotes required) into helping in or participating in the performance of a wedding ceremony which they see as something religious and sacred. How is that any different from officiating over it?" Now, that is a stretch. A baker, florist and photographer are providing a service, a commodity, a product, that has no official and legal status. They do not legally require any acknowledged training. Their is no "college" of bakers, florists, photographers that they must belong to and are governed by. Their signatures do not appear on marriage certificates. They are in business to provide baked flour products, dead plants and images on paper. As service providers, they are not legally allowed to deny services to anyone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Would we be sitting here defending the baker if he refused to provide a cake for an inter-racial couple? clown fish

CF, you are simply digging in deeper with more and more projections and personalities. This is the strongest possible proof that you have no sound answer on the merits. The lawfare agenda is plain, and the consequences of such are even plainer, on a lot of history. Divide, polarise and ruin eventually has a hard collision with rock bottom reality. Any responsible person or movement knows that. Maybe some imagine they can win any confrontation with the assumed marginalised minorities that may develop through the sort of agenda Tushnet advocates, but such is utterly ill advised. It is also utterly reckless in a geostrategic situation such as the world now faces. But then, geostrategic folly seems to be a habit of major western democracies, going all the way back to Athens. KF kairosfocus

Some time ago, I responded to an SSM supporter who was trying to reassure us Christians that, “The reality is that Christian ministers will never be forced to marry gays.” Oh?” I replied. “I think something close to that has already happened. Christian priests (and priestesses) have already been sued for not participating in a same sex wedding ceremony. BTW I am using priest here in the way it is defined for Christian’s in the New Testament. (See I Peter 2:9)" The clergy/ laity distinction is an artificial one which was created later in church history. So when a committed and active Christian florist, baker or photographer is sued for not participating in a SSM wedding ceremony you are in fact trying to coerce a Christian priest (no scare quotes required) into helping in or participating in the performance of a wedding ceremony which they see as something religious and sacred. How is that any different from officiating over it? Most wedding ceremonies performed in the U.S. are indeed distinctly religious in nature—which is why they are performed by ministers, priests or rabbis in churches, synagogues etc. The role of the state, according to the establishment clause, is to be completely non-religious. You don’t need a ceremony to be married civilly. So even though SS couples have “won” the right to be married civilly that does not give them the right to demand that Christian wedding vendors violate their rights of conscience to participate in quasi-religious ceremony. Please notice that their not participating in a wedding ceremony does not deny a SS couple the legal right to get married (or find someone else to do their wedding.) For that all they (the SS couple) need to do is sign a piece of paper. john_a_designer

KairosFocus: "the facts are plain, given for instance my racial background." Your narcissism is showing. Given my pseudonym, what race am I? What sex am I? What age am I? What skin colour do I have (hint, it is not orange and white)? How the hell would I know what race you are? From your comments, I can infer your religion, but how would anyone know your skin colour from your comments? You really have to get over your self importance. clown fish

CF, the facts are plain, given for instance my racial background. The issue of a dangerous lawfare agenda is also quite plain, given for example this by Harvard Law professor and cultural marxist Tushnet:

The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they [= conservatives] were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars [–> lawfare, the usurpation of the sword of justice to impose a ruthless agenda, is an outright act of war] . . . For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) [–> notice, the revealing and sadly familiar pattern of invidious, tainting comparatives on offer: slavery, racism, nazism, aggressive imperialism . . . telling us a LOT about the hostility and slanderous projection we are dealing with, this professor needs to publicly apologise and retract with a serious mea culpa based explanation, starting with this point] I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.

Your ilk are playing with very dangerous matches, and the consequences for our civilisation are highly predictable and destructive. Your attempt to twist my statement of concerns into casting aspersions against my character simply compounds the nature of what you have done. KF kairosfocus

KairosFocus, once again your response attempts to cast aspersions on the motives and intents of the commenter rather than addressing the substance of the comment. Not a very attractive character trait. clown fish

CF, my skin colour is not an issue of morally freighted behaviour. Your attempted comparison is instantly outrageous -- and an indication of extremely dangerous intent raising the question of a train of abuses and usurpations invariably pursuing a patently malevolent design. KF kairosfocus

KairosFocus: "In the case of a bakery or photographer or the like, we are not dealing with the only source of food and water in the midst of a desert." Your comment with one minor change. "In the case of a Woolworth's diner or the like, we are not dealing with the only source of food and water in the midst of a desert." In many small towns or remote communities, it is not uncommon for there to be a single baker or photographer in the town. clown fish

JAD, The discussion I have again put up on moral truths includes this:

7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd.

We are dealing with those wishing to use claimed rights enforced under colour of law as a bludgeon to intimidate others into support, enabling behaviour or silence. In the case of a bakery or photographer or the like, we are not dealing with the only source of food and water in the midst of a desert. In such a circumstance, compelled labour in celebration of the morally dubious is being used to push an agenda. With very serious onward implications given that objectors on principle are routinely slandered as "bigots" etc in an era where hate speech laws are seriously open to dangerous abuse. KF kairosfocus

Here is an example from a discussion I was involved in about a year ago. Notice the tortured logic on the part of our interlocutor.

Members of the LGBQT community have endured tremendous discrimination in all aspects of their lives–employment, housing, service from businesses, etc. This law is protects them, at the expense of placing requirements on business owners, who have more options. It is not easy to transition from making cakes to doing something else, but it is easier than becoming not-gay.

https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2015/07/could-this-restore-christian-bakers-freedom-of-conscience/#comment-116230 (The discussion with Gavin begins at #20 of that thread.) But is forcing a baker who has deeply held religious beliefs, about what is/is not marriage, to bake a wedding cake a gay couple’s only option? What’s wrong with simply finding another baker? As far as I can see nothing. That’s known as accommodation and tolerance, as well as courtesy. Christian Doctors, for example, cannot be forced to perform abortions if they are personally oppose them for moral or religious reasons. Why can’t the same accommodation be extended to religious wedding vendors? Of course, if the LGBT community’s so-called “social justice” agenda is to punish and persecute people for their politically incorrect beliefs, punishing innocent religious bakers, florists and photographers makes perfect sense. (Anything for the cause.) However, I’m not suggesting that that makes it right, nor that it has anything really to do with social justice. Ironically, in creating their new rights they end up destroying the rights of others. This is the problem with man made rights. john_a_designer

Kairosfocus at #1, and Plato. The sentiments are similar to what God said through the prophet Jeremiah (2:27) against people who denied designed creation: "who say to a tree, ‘You are my father’, and to a stone, ‘You gave me birth.’ For they have turned their backs to me, and not their faces. But in the time of their trouble they say, ‘Come and save us!’" Of note; Darwin's grandfather encapsulated in his theory of evolution: "everything from shells". http://creation.com/darwinism-it-was-all-in-the-family. From shells to simians to humans, now much 'improved' by Charles Darwin: from worms to simians to humans, equally devoid of justice, as no intelligent planning is allowed. Still, subjectively, it maybe believed, such scripture confirms divine law, God did not use evolutionism to create. mw

" I must admit that if I were crew chief I would direct resources to the church." This may surprise people here, but so would I. Even though I am atheist, I freely acknowledge that churches serve a very important purpose for a large number of people, not to mention other charitable works that they often do. clown fish

"isn’t the forcing of a private bakery to close down similar to allowing both structures to burn" No, not even remotely. Barry Arrington

So, I absolutely agree that there are a few cases out there that are just wrong. Forcing a bakery to close up because they respectfully declined to bake a gay-cake. Just take your business to Wal-Mart then or bake your own pretty cake...it is a free country. However, stepping back a few steps and looking at our rights and more specifically our defense of these rights one can argue that our military actions defend the religious as equally as the lgbtwxyz crowd.....Stepping in a bit closer: A fire engine is dispatched to an LGBT building on fire.... the actions of the crew are hopefully not dictated by their collective morality...they would actively suppress the building just as they would a church.... doing their job right?... what they signed up for right? Should be no problems with this one. However, they arrive and find two structures, the towns only church and the LGBT both equally in flames (neither holds a historic or monetary 'value' greater than the other) but no fire hydrant and only the water in their engine tank.... enough to suppress one of the structures but not both. They are short-handed but can send one person to each structure to clear it..but one is going to burn. I can bet that most of the time the church would be saved first, maybe if this were downtown San Fran and the demographics were different the church might not be. I must admit that if I were crew chief I would direct resources to the church. I don't see any situation where they did nothing but clear the buildings and let them both burn.....isn't the forcing of a private bakery to close down similar to allowing both structures to burn? Trumper

Such as sweeping the streets? (That was a typical reduction of the dissident used by Communist regimes.) kairosfocus

BA: “Does anyone else see the irony of a moral subjectivist forcing a Christian baker to use his artistic skill to celebrate a homosexual wedding?” Indeed, but what is even more ironic is how such actions are being defended on some on-line blogs”. Like, “his rights aren’t being violated. He doesn’t have to be a baker. He is still free to find another line of work.” That’s not only ironic, it’s absolutely scary. john_a_designer

F/N: US DoI, 1776:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

KF kairosfocus

BA: Divide, polarise and ruin. Where, lawfare is the usurpation of the sword of justice in service to ruthless factional agendas. Plato warned us on this 2350 years ago, the ghosts of Socrates and Alcibiades at his shoulder:

Ath [in The Laws, Bk X]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

But, are we listening, or do we not think that if you make the same blunders again and again, you will run into the same trouble over and over again? KF PS: Notice, Plato, not Torquemada. Locke, Hooker, Aristotle, Blackstone and John Hancock et al, not Hitler or Lenin or Stalin or Mao. With a track record of success, now being trashed by those who would push us into paths that in the past century led to over 100 million dead by state-sponsored democide, and abortions at a rate of 50 millions per year globally. PPS: What part of, my political credo is deliberately and by committed choice found in the first two paragraphs of the US DoI 1776, word for word, duly memorised for that purpose, do these folks not get? (Or is it, that laws of Nature and Nature's God, self evident unalienable rights endowed by the Creator [which I took time to elaborate, as are again headlined today: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-cf-and-mark-victor-tushne-on-victory-in-the-culture-wars/ , that Governments exist to protect such proper rights and are accountable for doing that, that seem to give such folks the vapours?) kairosfocus