Dunno what the hell you're doing with the quote function, but you're not following rule 15. Of course it is. Had that been the case, the Nazi Party wouldn't have lasted a day, obviously. As to that, they were hardly bound by your opinion or anyone else's. Actually the record makes it perfectly clear that it's a figment of your imagination. Indeed you did, so as to divert attention from the fact that whole was composed of individuals who acted according to your criterion. Hardly any need for that, seeing the actions of a group are composed of the actions of its individual members, insofar as they act in concert with the group. Forgotten the other Axis powers, have you? Sure they were, just as the actions of the American revolutionaries were to deny the self-interests of the British. Actually all I'm doing is drawing reasonable inferences from it. More to the point, it's evidently not necessary to hold to the same definition from one post to the next, as far as you're concerned.
I thought we agreed that we were not going to derail the thread by injecting propaganda and nazi hatred since it is OFF TOPIC, why do you persist?
The arrow is a link to the post, which was a series of quotes from several posters. Not wanting to quote all of your comments to them, I copied only the one responding to mine. You will find that your comments are not altered. Not obvious at all. If you want to develop that argument (and can keep it focused on my definition of morality), it might make it obvious. It makes absolutely no difference whether they agreed with my definition or not. That's off-topic. What point are you trying to make? My definition hasn't changed, but you've added much to it. If you believe it has, please refer to my first post on that and show my how I'm not consistent.
Yeah, it points to your post, when it should point to my response to your post, as it would had you used the quote function per rule 15, so the conversation can easily be backtracked. Given that any group formed with an agreed upon purpose or purposes can only exist if comprised of individuals who choose "to behave in a way that is not purely self-interested", since they each have to give up some of their personal interests for the group to succeed. So to say a group that didn't meet your criterion wouldn't last a day is giving your position way too much credit, since it couldn't even form in the first place. What's that got to do with your opinion as to whether they were protecting themselves? If you try to address any of those points straight up, you might get dangerously close to the point - which is presumably why you found it convenient to lump them all together and respond with a silly question. I haven't added a damn thing to your definition. All I've done is draw reasonable inferences. Here's what you started with: In general, I think [morality is] choosing to behave in a way that is not purely self-interested. From there the conversation proceeded thus: y: You think the Nazis didn't act in each others' interests? A: Did the Nazis act in a way that considered the inhumane fate of the Jews or in their own self interests? y: They acted in each others' interest, thus meeting your stated criterion; [...] A: It doesn't meet my criterion. If the Nazis had acted without self interest, [...] See the difference?
One of the first posts I've seen from you that isn't pure semantics . . . and it's racist Nazi apologetics. Huh.
The arrow is automatically encoded when you manually copy and paste--it links back to the original post. Like I said, you responded to several others and I saw no need to quote your response to them as it might add to the confusion. What I see is that you're trying to point to a flaw in my definition by saying that since the Nazis worked together in their own self interest, their actions were moral. At best, I'd need to add in the idea of collective behaviors, which is questionable. No matter how you phrase it, the actions of the Nazis was immoral because they acted (collectively) in their own self interest, and not in the interest of the Jews. Am I correct on that? All actions by the individual or by the collective group are to some degree self-interested. There is no way around that. In my definition, if they act (individually or collectively) in a way that ignores the interests (as in safety and well being) of others, regardless of whether one person acts or a group acts collectively, then it is immoral. If a man kills his neighbor and takes his home and property, he has acted immorally because his actions were not concerned with the well being and safety of his neighbor. In fact, quite the opposite. If a group of men join together and kill neighbors they don't like, taking the properties for themselves, they have acted immorally for the same reasons regardless of any notion that they were supporting each other in a common cause. The act of killing neighbors and taking their property is immoral.
Sure your definition of semantics is so broad you could fit the whole glaxay in it. Please feel free to consult a dictionary and learn the difference between facts and apologetics, facts are facts, nothing more, facts are NOT apologetics neither are facts racist.
The "facts" you presented are questionable, at best. And the whole apologetics is to try to present facts that defend a case. As far as my "definition of semantics" being broad, I only use it to describe the use of cherry-picked dictionary definitions to try to "win" an argument while ignoring all other viable definitions of those same words. That's actually a much narrower definition of "semantic" than most use. The racist part I was referring to was blaming Jews for the Nazis. Glad gradpop killed a few Nazi scum before getting sent to the camps.
Then I suggest you educate yourself on the subject so you dont have to question the "facts". When one uses a word in a specific sense correcting you when you pretend the sense used is something other than intended is not cherry picking, its educating you to keep you on topic. Ah, the racist part I was referring to was blaming the Nazis for the Jews. Racist hatred no less.
I didn't fall asleep in history class. Except that's the opposite of how your semantic arguments typically go. Ooookay? Did you intend to just repeat me? He was the same race as the Nazis, he didn't attack them because of their race and I'm not hating on them because of their race. Please learn what racism actually means.
Obviously, since the racist programming permanently stuck and became a religion eliminating any desire to validate the 'facts'. The winner will never be asked if he lied. ~Adolf Hitler He? Who is "He" I didnt, try again: "Ah, the racist part I was referring to was blaming the Nazis for the Jews." Does it make sense to you now?
Religion is not the sole source of morality for we also have laws of the land that deals and regulate morality. The ten commandments is a good source about maintaining good morals preventing harms inflicted from a human towards another human.
the Ten Commandments do reflect some of what you mention I would point out that they are not the exclusive source of such ideas.... and, and self proclaimed theists have not been all that concerned about adherence to the Ten Commandments. For example... do theists really care about bearing false witness against people... is this an important god given concept that we should be concerned about? and, let’s say it is not such an important touchstone of morality... then why include it in the Ten Commandments and not include moral values such as thou shalt not enslave your fellow man? and, let’s say the Ten Commandments were sent by god.... why would god then have to send his son to up date the ten commandment? Why not send all that moral information at the outset?
If one is a theist then of course one will follow he don't want to be condemned and in the afterlife live in the eternal flames of hell. There's a misconception about slave and servant in the Bible, Trump is a public servant. Moses and God knows that some of our kind before were still not following God's commandments that's why Moses smashed the ten commandments tablets. Jesus Christ was sent to save us from our sins.
ARDY: Everything in the Judeo-Christian Bible aka SCRIPTURE was written by men who were inspired by Jehovah to write it. "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righetousness." (2 Timothy 3:16) The things you are complaining about in your above post were prescribed ONLY to the ancient Hebrews/Israelites who were under the Mosaic Law (which was God's Law to the direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Those instructions about how to deal with adulterers, food restrictions, and clothing restrictions, etc. were not for the Gentiles (all other peoples on planet earth who were not direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Alter2Ego
Many people share your opinion I have a different view.... but thank you for expressing your view Ardy
Bearing false witness is not one of the real Ten Commandments. Breaking a newborn donkey’s neck is one of the real Ten Commandments. The real Ten Commandments don't have anything to do with morality.
We can certainly do better than that garbage. If you take the time to learn a little bit about animals, you'll find that behavior varies considerably between species and that more intelligent social species do exhibit empathy. Our mirror neurons are a far better starting guide than the Bible.
The Bible defines slavery as the ownership of another human being as personal property. That is, indeed, a slave, not a mere servant. Trump is not the property of the United States. We can't beat him senseless and be forgiven if he survives for a few days afterward because he is out property.
And what we do better now? Murdering of more as 300m in the name of leftist utopia, no kids, no moral, deviations of any kind, lying, cheating, destroyed families? No God, no Moral
Trump is an insane moron and shall be removed from the office. Due to him we are teetering on the brink WWIII today
Violent crime is much lower now than it was in Biblical times, for one. Oh, and getting rid of slavery, that's good. And learning to distinguish between unarmed civilians and soldiers during wartime. Hm, come to think of it I'm not sure if I can think of anything we are doing worse. No logic, this argument.
