BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Valmoon]

Posted by Novice:

"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."


Wrong.

 

[marcelpo]

Since a negative cannot be proven but a positive CAN, the burden of proof clearly lies with Knight. Also, he knows it and has accepted it. Now I'm curious how he is going to PROVE it, because so far all "absolutes" that humans have encountered were proven to be absolute by SCIENCE and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION.

I'm looking forward to Knight pointing out some experiment that proves that moral standards have some kind of "goodness" value to them that experiments can detect. So far, I've known of NO experiment able to show this.

Barring these experiments, it will become IMPOSSIBLE to discern if some moral standard is "higher" or "better" than another. Moreover, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to detach a moral standard from the person who follows it, since there is no way to determine if a moral standard exists outside the person.

A light detector will register a photon impact regardless of wether or not a human is present. We don't have something similar for moral values.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


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?

We're talking about moral relativism/absolutism here, not just any kind of absolutes. There is a big difference ... a huge difference ... a planet-sized difference between moral absolutes, mathematical absolutes, and physical absolutes. The absolutists tend to easily fall victim to a couple major fallacies:

1) They tend to believe that if you accept one kind of absolute, you must accept all kinds.

2) They tend to believe that if you reject one kind of absolute, you must reject all kinds.

Both of these are false expectations. Quite simply, the different kinds of absolutes are not interrelated. A does not prove B, B does not prove C, and C does not prove A. I'll give the same example I've given before, using a couple different theoretical absolutes to show how rediculous the absolutists' argument is when it is shown to them:

Moral absolute: gang-rape is wrong in any situation
Physical absolute: my car is sitting in my driveway

The absolutists' argument by assuming that one must accept one kind if they accept the other: I must accept gang-rape is wrong in any situation because I know my car is sitting in my driveway.

 

[Eireann]

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

First of all, you know nothing about me to call me a left-winger. Second of all, the post was about the pettiness of Webmaster keeping up his complaint about the edit. Petty is petty. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


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?

Actually, most relativists do not claim that truth is defined by the individual. Actually, if we're talking about morals, they are not defined by the individual, but by society. If we're talking about truth ... well, this moral relativist believes in absolute truth. But morals and morality are twists upon and interpretations of truth. They are not truth themselves. That makes them relative.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose
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.

So when a religionist uses your logical construct, it's valid logic, and an atheist uses it, it's circular reasoning...

That's pretty good BS, goose. You seem to have invented user-specific logic, goose. It only works for religionists...

Perhaps you should patent it, I could use it in my garden to fertilize my wife's flowers...

 

[Zakath]

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

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

Originally posted by novice
Before I even got to my seat this thing was over!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.

It is not possible to logically prove the non-existence of something. The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists, in this case, Knight must prove that absolute morality as he defined it actually exists. He has yet to take a single step in that direction, spending all his efforts attempting to disprove my side of the argument.

If I challenged you to disprove my assertion that the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) runs the universe, could you do it?

No, you cannot logically prove that "Her Immense Pinkness" doesn't run things. You would be forced to prove that something or someone else does...

Does that make things clearer?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by anna


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?

By George, I think she's got it!

All I did was use goose's exact words and substituted a few nouns. The point of the exercise, which seems to be lost on goose is that since logic is impartial and broadly applicable, if my statement is illogical, then so is goose's original...

 

[Pilgrimagain]

I'm going to try an experiment here. I'm going to post this then edit it to see how the system works. I am setting a timer as soon as I hit the post button.here goes.

here is the edit.

2nd edit almost 4 minutes later

 

[Pilgrimagain]

no problems, in under 2 minutes (barely with the lag of a dial up connection) and no extra time tag for the edit.

Seems to work spot on.

The time tag for the second edit marked the exact length of time between post and edit. This being the case, we know the time tag measures the exact time between posting and editing. Zak's tag for the edit shows an exact 2 minute lapse between his first post and the edit. This shows that the edit was AT the time limit but not OVER it. No foul.

Pilgrim

 

[cirisme]

In zakath's latest post he said,

(I specified “normally-developed” to exclude extreme fringes of the population with mental pathologies that inhibit with the development of or interfere with the functional use of a set of moral standards.)

If I didn't know better, I'd say this was an insult to people like me.

 

[Zakath]

If the shoe fits...

...start wearing sandals!

 

[webby]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
no problems, in under 2 minutes (barely with the lag of a dial up connection) and no extra time tag for the edit.

Seems to work spot on.

The time tag for the second edit marked the exact length of time between post and edit. This being the case, we know the time tag measures the exact time between posting and editing. Zak's tag for the edit shows an exact 2 minute lapse between his first post and the edit. This shows that the edit was AT the time limit but not OVER it. No foul.

Pilgrim

Pilgrimagain, give it a rest!

The "edited by...." tag IS the foul.

Argument OVER.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Only because you say so I guess, because your reasoning sure doesn't explain anything. But you're the boss so the buck stops with you.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
Only because you say so I guess, because your reasoning sure doesn't explain anything. But you're the boss so the buck stops with you.

I am sorry but I have to comment on this.

What do you mean "your reasoning sure doesn't explain anything"? The webmasters reasoning has explained exactly, in detail every aspect of this situation. It is YOU Pilgrim who appears to be the only one thickheaded enough to not understand what happened and it's complete fairness.

Do you think the webmaster sat at the computer waiting for Zakath to edit his post and then at the two minute mark exclaimed "HA! I caught him - HA HA!!"????

The truth is the forum script software automatically generates the "edited by...." tag and therefore it is a completely impartial function.

Ultimately it really has no effect on the outcome of the debate. The post was allowed to stand (rightfully so) and the debate has moved on!

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight
...Do you think the webmaster sat at the computer waiting for Zakath to edit his post and then at the two minute mark exclaimed "HA! I caught him - HA HA!!"????

LOL! You mean he wasn't????

The truth is the forum script software automatically generates the "edited by...." tag and therefore it is a completely impartial function.

... ain't technology wonderful?

Ultimately it really has no effect on the outcome of the debate. The post was allowed to stand (rightfully so) and the debate has moved on!

AMEN! Let's roll...

 

[Jaltus]

Finally some sense.

 

[WayneV]

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

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

Zakath,
Can you prove the following statement?

Originally posted by Zakath
It is not possible to logically prove the non-existence of something.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

:::::BUMP::::::THUMP::::::GROAN:::::::FAWUMP!:::::


That was the sound of me getting over it.

 

[Zakath]

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

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

WayneV asked Zakath...
Can you prove the following statement?

It is not possible to logically prove the non-existence of something.

I don't have to prove it. It's a generally accepted rule describing a limitation of logic and rhetoric. Logically disproving a negative is roughly analogous to trying to divide by zero in mathematics.

The easiest way for Knight to prove me wrong is to trot out an example of absolute morality for us to examine...