BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[bill betzler]

Posted by Zakath

Recently the news media has held forth at great length on issues dealing with accounting by large corporations such as Enron and WorldCom. While much (maybe most) of the behavior their leadership engaged in was not strictly illegal, the general feeling among the populace is that it is considered morally wrong to handle corporate finances in ways that produce inaccurate messages for auditors and investors. Public outcry is so intense that Congress is currently in the process of considering new legislation to force more clarity in those kinds of situations

People havn't changed in 2000 years. The American public could care less about Clinton's immorality in the White House because the economy was good. Also, no one complained when these same corporate leaders were making outrageous incomes during the good times. But take away the Public's money and they are ready to hang anyone on moral grounds.

Jesus one day rides into Jeruselem with the praise of the people and soon afterwards they would rather have Barabbas on their streets rather than Jesus.

There has to be a morality greater than self. Altruism is even selective in that some are left out. It would appear that only a God could be a moral compass for all. Perhaps this God could make a system in which goodness comes to all people while they serve Him. Alas, now who could do that??

p.s. Zakath I'll email you when you have more time.

bill

 

[Jaltus]

After reading Zak's last post on the actual debate, I think our old Zak is back.

 

[anna]

Re: Knight with a TKO

Re: Knight with a TKO

Originally posted by Goose
I didn't even have to hand him a chair...

Mike Tyson's Punchout...I love that game

ac

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Zakath
Let's try this again goose. We'll just change a few nouns...

• If what is true for Zakath is that goose's religion is false, then is it true that goose's religion is false?
  
  If goose would say no, then what is true for Zakath is not true and goose's religion is false. If goose says yes, then goose's religion is false.

It would appear that your own logic proves your religious belief to be false, goose.

Does the logic flow make as much sense that way??

Perhaps you'd like to try again...

NOPE. Sorry Zakath, that's a fallacy. You're using circular reasoning. The nouns don't change a thing. You're making assumptions using relativism, thereby begging the question.

 

[Goose]

Re: Re: Knight with a TKO

Re: Re: Knight with a TKO

Originally posted by anna


Mike Tyson's Punchout...I love that game

ac

How far have you gotten?

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Sasquatch
Sorry, Goose...



Maybe in a debate regarding a moral act (i.e. whether or not to call your mom on mother's day, whether or not to give back a bag of money found in a park, etc) - but you didn't make that clear.

How about a debate between a moral relatavist/scientist and a Christan about the nature of gravity?

Or the moral relativist/mathematician and the moron/Christian about whether 2+2 really equals 4?

There are moral issues and there are objective truths, just as Evangelion said... the moral relativist can often win the debate with absolute certainty in the realm of objective truth and not be tainted by his/her moral relativism.

Peace, grace and mercy...

How can anything be objective if truth is defined by the individual?
If truth is defined by the individual, wouldn't that mean that truth is subjective?

Are there any wrong answers? If so, why?
Are there any right answers? If so, why?
5+4=8
5+4=9
ac
ps Does anybody know anything?

 

[Goose]

Anna,

My thoughts exactly! :up:

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Sasquatch
Sorry, Goose...



Maybe in a debate regarding a moral act (i.e. whether or not to call your mom on mother's day, whether or not to give back a bag of money found in a park, etc) - but you didn't make that clear.

How about a debate between a moral relatavist/scientist and a Christan about the nature of gravity?

Or the moral relativist/mathematician and the moron/Christian about whether 2+2 really equals 4?

There are moral issues and there are objective truths, just as Evangelion said... the moral relativist can often win the debate with absolute certainty in the realm of objective truth and not be tainted by his/her moral relativism.

Peace, grace and mercy...

Oops! You're right Sasquach! I was trying to talk about Relativists, not "moral" ones.

 

[Goose]

Actually, let me retract that. I messed up and included "Moral" at the beginning of my statement that Bigfoot replied to. I meant Relativists, and I think Anna did too, by the way she's arguing.

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Goose
Anna,

My thoughts exactly! :up:

I can't wait to read the reply.
I am trying to follow Zakath, but am having trouble. I am used to pronouns and antecedents and statements that refect the writer's personal opinion rather than supposed opinions of others.
ac

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by anna


I can't wait to read the reply.
I am trying to follow Zakath, but am having trouble. I am used to pronouns and antecedents and statements that refect the writer's personal opinion rather than supposed opinions of others.
ac

Me too! We must remember, Zakath is a psychologist. He likes to mess with peoples heads. Did you read my reply to his reply?

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Goose
Anna,

My thoughts exactly! :up:

I can't wait to read the reply.
I am trying to follow Zakath, but am having trouble. I am used to pronouns and antecedents and statements that refect the writer's personal opinion rather than supposed opinions of others.
ac

 

[anna]

Re: Re: Re: Knight with a TKO

Re: Re: Re: Knight with a TKO

Originally posted by Goose
How far have you gotten?

I got to the big clumsy looking guy(can't remember his name) after the Indian/Tiger guy. I don't have my Nintendo anymore; I gave it away.

 

[Goose]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Knight with a TKO

Re: Re: Re: Re: Knight with a TKO

Originally posted by anna


I got to the big clumsy looking guy(can't remember his name) after the Indian/Tiger guy. I don't have my Nintendo anymore; I gave it away.

I remember he had a turban...

I think his name was...Muhammed?

 

[novice]

This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

Before I even got to my seat this thing was over!

Originally posted by Zakath
Goose, the issue is to prove that absolutes exist. I am waiting for Knight to do so.

If he is not able to do so, he loses.

Zakath how incredibly short sighted of you. The topic is.... Is there such a thing as absolute morality? The burden of proof rests upon both combatants. You need to prove (or argue) that there is NOT such a thing as absolute morality, but since you have already argued against moral relativism and moral subjectivism you lost the debate in the 2nd round.

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Goose
Me too! We must remember, Zakath is a psychologist. He likes to mess with peoples heads. Did you read my reply to his reply?

Yes, I did. I am still trying to figure out what Zak is saying. This is my translation:

Is Zak right?

If Goose says that Zak is wrong, than Goose's religion is wrong.

If Goose says that Zak is right, than Goose's religion is wrong.

Gee...I guess you just can't win, Goose. No matter what you say, you are wrong, but that doesn't matter because nobody knows anything and if we did, that wouldn't matter because we are all figments of our own imagination...or are we?

ac

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Eireann

For all intents and purposes, he did. All one has to do is compare the times on the screen. They clearly mark two minutes between the post and the revision. As he pointed out, TOL does not show the seconds, so he had no way of knowing if he was exactly within the two minutes or not. We are talking about a matter of seconds beyond the allowed time. You're simply being petty.

Stated like a true left winger! You left wingers have made far more out of this than Zakath himself!

 

[Sasquatch]

Hey, Goose...

Good thread, lots of crazy stuff here.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a real live "Relativist" in the sense that he/she believes that all information is open to personal interpretation. I have yet to come across someone who actually believes this - although I would think some engaged in Eastern Thought type religions would fall into this category. A true relativist views ALL perceptual input as interpretable by the receiver - not only moral issues, but issues of basic reality (i.e. the existence of other minds, time, etc.)

Here in the West, we run into humanist/naturalist/moral relativists. This person sees the world as consisting of external and discernable truths that exist apart from our personal interpretations (i.e. gravity, speed of light, etc.). These people make the argument that morality just isn't one of those things that falls into the "external and discernable truths" category. This has no bearing on their ability to effectively argue for "external and discernable truths."

I would lobby the point that there is a BIG difference between the two... your argument (that every relativist is self-defeating)rests on the fact that everyone you run into is of the first persuasion - this is assuredly not the case.

We Christians believe that morals do fit into the category of "eternal and discernable truths." If we are to meet the challenge head on, then we need to come up with a way to argue that point effectively.

"You are self refuting, blah " is neither effective or very sporting. And for goodness sake... we want to put on a good show

Grace peace and mercy...

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Jaltus
After reading Zak's last post on the actual debate, I think our old Zak is back.

LOL! You gotta be kidding! Zakath's post 3 was almost as bad as post 2!

All fluff and no substance!

You must have an axe to grind with Knight because Zakath is clearly wobbling if not knocked out already! If this were a boxing match they would have thrown in the towel for Zakath in the 2nd round!

Think about it!!!!! He is a relativist or a subjectivist (same difference) yet he is arguing some things are wrong even when they are relatively or subjectively right!!!!! Read that sentence again....

Zakath is a relativist or a subjectivist (same difference), yet he is arguing some things are wrong even when they are relatively or subjectively right!!!!! It's self refuting!!! Ref.... stop the fight, stop the fight!

 

[Evangelion]

Goose -

You can't always be generous.

Well... I'll grant this, for the sake of argument. But does he really need to scream at them? The apostle Paul never found it necessary to do this.

I wouldn't want to be "generous" to some homo hitting on me. Agreed?

*shrugs*

Fair enough, but what's your point? Enyart wasn't talking to a homosexual in the show to which I have referred. He was talking to a woman who had said that the Israelis needed to be called to account for the civilian deaths in Palestine. And even I, a vigorous pro-Jewish supporter of the Israeli cause, must agree that this is perfectly reasonable.

But Enyart didn't see it this way - at least, he didn't appear to want to see it this way. (Which is another thing entirely, of course.) What he did was to employ (a) the fallacy of equivocation, and (b) the straw man fallacy, with which two rhetorical devices he wilfully distorted the message of his caller, and then proceded to work himself up into a frantic state until he was practically apoplectic. Having successfully got himself into the mood, he then screamed at the top of his lungs for about ten minutes.

Not exactly an exercise in rational debate, is it?