Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
So God is a white black brown Chinese trans hermaphrodite? 😵
It means men are men and woman are woman and that's all there is to it. Checkmate. 
Ha Ha!
Being made in the Image (Likeness) of God means that, like God, we have a body, soul and spirit.
It doesn't mean we physically look like God.
I'm saying Natural Selection doesn't not necessarily entail Macro-Evolution.
Some folks believe that Creationists deny the existence of Natural Selection.
Allow me to translate for lagtight: "I have carefully studied the bible and identified which parts of it are in direct contradiction with modern scientific/rational thought and there is absolutely no leeway for any other interpretation, and in those areas I 'disagree' with science. For everything else, science is absolutely fine."
Ha Ha!
Being made in the Image (Likeness) of God means that, like God, we have a body, soul and spirit.
It doesn't mean we physically look like God.
I think we probably do, to make it easier for him to come down and visit. He might like to slum it down here like one of us, just a stranger on the bus.
I think folks dying of COVID is terrible. However, within Evolution Philosophy (which I obviously reject) folks dying of COVID isn't inherently problematic.
On what level are we talking about? If we are talking metaethics, I don’t suspect many here have specified views on metaethics, and many in fact might be realists on utilitarian grounds.
If we are talking about normative ethics, most people who accept evolution fall under the typical normative theories of deontology, utilitarianism, or virtue ethics. If it’s unspecified they may adhere to secular humanism or social liberalism as a general heuristic.
So I doubt you could substantiate that without deliberately strawmanning other people’s positions.
Not bad. Not quite Sense and Sensibilia by JL Austin but I hope the book I never wrote had such a good title.
Thanks.
My Senior Thesis was a paper discussing Austin's evaluation of the "performative/constative" distinction.
That was written before I consented to have my brain damaged by the Medical-Industrial Complex though.
Allow me to translate for lagtight: "I have carefully studied the bible and identified which parts of it are in direct contradiction with modern scientific/rational thought and there is absolutely no leeway for any other interpretation, and in those areas I 'disagree' with science. For everything else, science is absolutely fine."
That is not a fair representation of my view.
But don't think I don't appreciate your efforts on my behalf.
I always enjoy applauding an honest effort, even if the final product is flawed in important ways.
On what level are we talking about? If we are talking metaethics, I don’t suspect many here have specified views on metaethics, and many in fact might be realists on utilitarian grounds.
I agree. And I am talking about the meta-ethical level.
I'm not suggesting that Evolutionists themselves are necessarily less moral/ethical than Creationists.
What I am suggesting is that the consistent evolutionist cannot give a coherent account for moral obligations, while the consistent Creationist can give a coherent account of moral obligations.
I agree. And I am talking about the meta-ethical level.
I'm not suggesting that Evolutionists themselves are necessarily less moral/ethical than Creationists.
What I am suggesting is that the consistent evolutionist cannot give a coherent account for moral obligations, while the consistent Creationist can give a coherent account of moral obligations.
I’m of the belief that these ideas are not dichotomous. Also, I think that if we really want to preserve moral realism we can just posit extra entities in our theoretical construction. The “cost” to our theory might be worth it to many people. Only in very ontologically reductionist frameworks would there be some kind of contradiction, and I suspect most people don’t want to endorse solipsism or other hard skeptical positions.
Please steelman my position first, then I will address that, instead of wasting time and energy with your almost-but-not-quite serious version.
Lol, if you think I'm going to waste any time or energy debating seriously with someone who thinks 2000 year old fairy tales are a true historical account of anything, you are even more deluded than I thought.
There really are quite a lot of parents I've known who on reflection now, looking back, were very lucky their offspring maintained contact.
Sometimes severing links with them, as hard as that is, is the best thing for one's mental health ainec.
On the other hand some parents should count themselves lucky that their spiteful small minded offspring have severed contact. Imagine being so consumed by political differences that you would never talk to your parents again. It amazes me that people take politics that seriously.
Both of my parents are wildly racist and hateful Trumpers. You couldn't pay me to ever talk to them again.
Okay, but you spend your time talking to racist and hateful trumpers all day long on the internet.
Maybe there is good reason for you to cut off your parents. I woulsnt know. But i do know that it can be very beneficial and healthy to find positve ways to interact with people as imoetant as your parents. At least from my experiences. Id imagine a goos chunk of people cutting their family off are childish little pricks - but not all though.
