President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
If the Naturalistic Worldview were true, then you and your beloved wife and children would be of no more (or less) ultimate value than the vomit your pet dog spews all over your living room carpet.
Fortunately, you and your beloved wife and children are made in the image of God!!
What is an ultimate value? Is it even something that makes sense? I know that his wife and children could have value to him, and a dog’s vomit wouldn’t have value to him, so if preferential value is all that can be accommodated under naturalism it wouldn’t follow that relative to his values that they would have the same value.
You’re presenting it as an internal critique but it doesn’t sound like one. It sounds like what you’re saying is that you need the God value to have ultimate value, which obviously that wouldn’t exist under naturalism.
What is an ultimate value? Is it even something that makes sense? I know that his wife and children could have value to him, and a dog’s vomit wouldn’t have value to him, so if preferential value is all that can be accommodated under naturalism it wouldn’t follow that relative to his values that they would have the same value.You’re presenting it as an internal critique but it
I see this as an example of the classic intrinsic versus extrinsic value distinction playing itself out.
That is, do persons have value by virtue of being persons (i.e. instrinsic value), or do they merely have instrumental value in that they can have value to someone else (i.e. extrinsic value).
In the Christian Worldview all people are made in the Image of God (i.e. people have a body, soul and spirit), and as such have instrinsic value.
In other words, in a Naturalistic Worldview one can certainly have sentiments, but as such they are first-person subjective.
(More later....getting late!!)
I see this as an example of the classic intrinsic versus extrinsic value distinction playing itself out.That is, do persons have value by virtue of being persons (i.e. instrinsic value), or do they merely have instrumental value in that they can have value to someone else (i.e. extrinsic value).In the Christian Worldview all people are made in the Image of God (i.e. people have
I prefer the terminology “stance independent” vs “stance dependent” over intrinsic vs extrinsic. Because what you just offered as the explanation of why a human is valuable but dog vomit is not is just a description of humans. “Humans have the image of God”. Then you need a connecting premise to get to a normative statement. “Having the image of God is valuable”. But what kind of value? You still need the description of what you mean by value. So is it stance dependent value or stance independent value? Because the intrinsic or extrinsic value doesn’t seem to bridge the gap of proving moral realism.
If the Naturalistic Worldview were true, then you and your beloved wife and children would be of no more (or less) ultimate value than the vomit your pet dog spews all over your living room carpet.
Fortunately, you and your beloved wife and children are made in the image of God!!
Peddle this bs to someone else please.
This skit really encapsulates lagtight's interactions with the forum.
geezer/lag on his knees begging for this undertitle
How would one go about getting on the 5 person "Truth and Justice Commission" to oversee distribution of the $1.776B fund? Do I have to apply?
How would one go about getting on the 5 person "Truth and Justice Commission" to oversee distribution of the $1.776B fund? Do I have to apply?
Do you have black shoe polish on your tongue?
I do not. I'm trying to envisions the candidates.
Stephen Miller (obvs)
Vince McMahon
Hannity
Kari Lake
natediggity
That’s almost an 80% decrease. Or 1.78%.
How would one go about getting on the 5 person "Truth and Justice Commission" to oversee distribution of the $1.776B fund? Do I have to apply?
I going after it from the other end and will apply even though I have no legitimate claim. Should be fun if we can get millions to do the same thing and swamp nate and his 4 other cohorts.
I going after it from the other end and will apply even though I have no legitimate claim. Should be fun if we can get millions to do the same thing and swamp nate and his 4 other cohorts.
Well it says that they don’t have to reveal basically any information about who gets the money so they’re probably not going to read any of that **** anyways.
I going after it from the other end and will apply even though I have no legitimate claim. Should be fun if we can get millions to do the same thing and swamp nate and his 4 other cohorts.
I point out the absolute ridiculousness of this fund to coworkers and I get "well you know Biden and his crew were doing the same thing" and I just ask them "are you being serious?"
It's unbelievable. Our money might actually be going to the QAnon Shaman.
I point out the absolute ridiculousness of this fund to coworkers and I get "well you know Biden and his crew were doing the same thing" and I just ask them "are you being serious?"
It's unbelievable. Our money might actually be going to the QAnon Shaman.
If anyone cares about fixing government, then we should pass a law that automatically stays (and tolls the statute of limitations for) any lawsuit that a sitting president has filed against U.S. government. That would eliminate the ridiculous spectacle of a "settlement" that is "negotiated" between the president and an agency controlled by the president.
If anyone cares about fixing government, then we should pass a law that automatically stays (and tolls the statute of limitations for) any lawsuit that a sitting president has filed against U.S. government. That would eliminate the ridiculous spectacle of a "settlement" that is "negotiated" between the president and an agency controlled by the president.
Ffs the fund is 1.776 bln literally cuz 1776 hyuck hyuck hyuck
This is just heinous
I prefer the terminology “stance independent” vs “stance dependent” over intrinsic vs extrinsic. Because what you just offered as the explanation of why a human is valuable but dog vomit is not is just a description of humans. “Humans have the image of God”. Then you need a connecting premise to get to a normative statement. “Having the image of God is valuable”. But what kind
This is a lot of deep stuff to take in. I will think it over and respond in due course.
Then you'll be blocked just like anyone else would. I don't tolerate proselytizing, especially when it has been clear it was unwelcome.
Not a threat, just a notification. Take it however you'd like.
Then you'll be blocked just like anyone else would. I don't tolerate proselytizing, especially when it has been clear it was unwelcome.
Not a threat, just a notification. Take it however you'd like.
Thanks for the notification.
Quick personal question if I may be so bold: Do you have LandOlakes blocked, and if so why?
Most of the right-wing opposition to the Iran war really has nothing to do with morality, an assessment of Iranian nuclear capability, an assessment of the viability of U.S. strategic objectives, waste of money, or unnecessary casualties. The war is inconsistent with the inward-looking nationalism that Trump sold to the MAGA nation. That's the real hanging offense for people like Tucker and MTG.
Most of the right-wing opposition to the Iran war really has nothing to do with morality, an assessment of Iranian nuclear capability, an assessment of the viability of U.S. strategic objectives, waste of money, or unnecessary casualties. The war is inconsistent with the inward-looking nationalism that Trump sold to the MAGA nation. That's the real hanging offense for people
so is the liberal opposition. they cite gas prices, and the cost of the war. and ofc Dems supporters are extremely critical that the war has failed.
anyone opposing this war on the basis of morality should be extremely happy that the US and Israel lost.
