Translation: Morality can't be a form of instinct because it hurts my argument. Why are human constructs not real?
My argument hinges on regular english definitions, instead of blurring all words together in Orwellian ambiguity. If I'm not clear to you, i can elucidate. I don't need a translator. IF... something is a human construct.. an imaginary or arbitrary behavioral code that is imposed upon people for control, then it is not a Real Thing, but is bluffed, for manipulation. Only if a God 'embedded' such a code could it be a Real Thing, and not a human construct. How could something arbitrary, or subjective be a 'Real Moral!'? You pick what you like, in the morality smorgasbord, and others do the same. Only if God decreed a universal moral Standard, could it be a binding, compelling force in the human psyche.
The regular English definition of delusion includes references to mental health (IE psychiatry and psychology) and yet you omit that part of the regular English definition because it hurts your argument. A 2012 Toyota Camry is a human construct. Are 2012 Toyota Camry's not real? Politics are arbitrary and subjective. Are they not real? I've already pointed out numerous examples of how there is no universal morality in humans.
Your reasoning is getting detached. Is the Easter bunny real? Santa Claus? We are not talking about human construction projects, when using 'constructs'. The moon is not a human construct. Neither is gravity, light waves, or air. Santa Claus is a literary figure. So are the X-Men, the tooth fairy, and Darth Vader. So is God, in a godless universe. These are IMAGINARY human constructs, that, if believed, makes you delusional. I addressed the medical definition, and quoted from your link, showing it does not conflict. If you are arguing that the source of delusion is mental health, that is your argument. I'm just trying to define it and recognize it, in the human animal. Of course there is no 'universal morality in humans', in a godless universe. There is only manipulation and wishful thinking.
Love isn't a human construct either as it has very real physiological responses. There is no universal morality in humans in reality. You've brought things like lying and fraud and theft as examples of universal human morality and I've shown multiple times how all of those things are subjective and situational.
Please elucidate. What is the link between something being subjective and being a human construct, or being imaginary?
If something is humanly imagined, made up, or conjectured, it would be a human construct. Perhaps some of these conjectures might be real.. but they lack corroborating evidence. Here is a list of obvious human constructs: Santa Claus Easter Bunny Darth Vader X-Men Superman These are made up, fictional characters from man's imagination. Only delusional or very young children believe they are real. Here are some unknown characters that might be human constructs, or real.. thay are believed in by many, but have no compelling objective empirical evidence: Bigfoot Aliens Loch Ness Monster Ragnar Lodbrok Angels Demons God A rational progressive (!) Maybe some or all are human imaginations, but maybe some are real. Belief in these is common, and is not considered delusional, as there is a possibility of their reality. The implications of the Reality of some of these persons has consequences to humanity. Bigfoot, Nessie, and Ragnar can be dismissed, with no consequential effect on most people. God, aliens, or Angelic beings might have implications for our lives, and deserve more careful scrutiny, consideration, and research. That is why the common atheist meme of comparing belief in God to the tooth fairy is absurd. There is common and overwhelming personal experience with God and the supernatural, while fictional characters are obvious human constructs. God may be real, and, in fact, is. Some people are just ignorant of that fact.
Every political system and theory humanity has is a human construct. Are they not real? Why do you insist on holding onto this false dichotomy that soemthing human created cannot be real?
..nevermind.. you seem to skip over all my posts, and just want to bicker about irrelevancy. Distortions, straw men, and fallacies are not supposed to be part of 'rational discussion!' But they are essential in Progresso World..
It’s a simple question you should have no problem answering. Your argument hinges on this false idea that anything that is a human construct is not real, but that clearly is not the case as things like politics show. But as expected, you won’t address the content of my post because your argument is intellectually bankrupt. You are here to preach, not debate.
This is your straw man. I explained the distinction between imagined human constructs and possible real persons/events.
You, then, are here to disrupt and flame bait, not reason. Content?? You think your posts deflecting and disrupting have content?
I’m talking specifically about political theory and systems. Not people not events. Political theories and systems are human constructs. Are they real or not?
How do I reason with someone who selectively quotes posts rather than addressing their content? How do I reason with someone who selectively edits definitions if they don’t help their argument? You don’t have the intellectual honesty for a rational debate.
They are irrelevant. A deflection from the topic. Morality is the subject. Is it something Real, or imagined? Why?
Why are you sticking to this dichotomy? Just because morality is imagined that doesn’t mean it is t real. It’s the same as with politics, which you arbitrarily say is irrelevant because it hurts your argument.
No, trying to 'reason' with progressives hurts my brain.. i can feel myself slipping into numbing insanity!
I’m using reason and logic to point out how your dichotomy of human constructs not being real is a false dichotomy. You won’t address the problem with your “logic”, because it would begin to poke holes in your faith and theists can’t have that.
Ok, that's enough. You got to vent, but I'm bored with it.. plus, you're just going to get mean, and maybe infracted. (Or both of us!)
"IF... something is a human construct.. an imaginary or arbitrary behavioral code that is imposed upon people for control, then it is not a Real Thing, but is bluffed, for manipulation. Only if a God 'embedded' such a code could it be a Real Thing, and not a human construct. How could something arbitrary, or subjective be a 'Real Moral!'? You pick what you like, in the morality smorgasbord, and others do the same. Only if God decreed a universal moral Standard, could it be a binding, compelling force in the human psyche."
Yeah. In the future, when you selectively quote my posts, I’m just going to report you as a Rule 15 violation. I wonder how long it will take me to get you banned.
Prove the above assertion. Secondly, prove the existence of a supposed universal moral standard that is “binding, compelling force in the human psyche”.
Probably quite some time, as I'll just ignore you for a while.. So this is your goal, here? To get me banned? Makes sense. Rational discussion does not seem to interest you. CYA..
