Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

[Taz]

Do unto others isn’t a standard that is universally applied, it depends on the person.

Like I said before, we are good at seeing wrong done to us but not our wrongs we do to others. It doesn’t change the standard. The standard just is.

No such standard. Stop digging.

Sure there is. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Stop digging, you have nothing.

I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.

Explaining irrelevant shit doesn’t mean you have anything.

 

[ding]

Like I said before, we are good at seeing wrong done to us but not our wrongs we do to others. It doesn’t change the standard. The standard just is.

No such standard. Stop digging.

Sure there is. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Stop digging, you have nothing.

I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.

Explaining irrelevant shit doesn’t mean you have anything.

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

 

[ding]

Man is subjective and has free will. What can I say. But in the end consequences suffered reveal the standard and the reason the standard exists.

Has there ever been a successful culture or country that lived by the Golden Rule?

... Besides almost all of them? Remember, slavery was wildly successful.

I can't think of any country that was not founded on violence. I wonder if the Neanderthals were more ethical than we are?

Are you married? Do you conduct that relationship following certain standards of conduct? Is there a reason you do so?

 

[Taz]

No such standard. Stop digging.

Sure there is. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Stop digging, you have nothing.

I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.

Explaining irrelevant shit doesn’t mean you have anything.

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

 

[ding]

Sure there is. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Stop digging, you have nothing.

I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.

Explaining irrelevant shit doesn’t mean you have anything.

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

 

[Taz]

Stop digging, you have nothing.

I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.

Explaining irrelevant shit doesn’t mean you have anything.

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

 

[Hollie]

Sure there is. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Stop digging, you have nothing.

I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.

Explaining irrelevant shit doesn’t mean you have anything.

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

I think it’s difficult for the thumpers to understand that none of the gods have ever written a so-called holy book. They were are written by ancient, superstitious men.

 

[ding]

I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.

Explaining irrelevant shit doesn’t mean you have anything.

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

 

[ding]

Stop digging, you have nothing.

I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.

Explaining irrelevant shit doesn’t mean you have anything.

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

I think it’s difficult for the thumpers to understand that none of the gods have ever written a so-called holy book. They were are written by ancient, superstitious men.

You mean Jews?

 

[Taz]

Explaining irrelevant shit doesn’t mean you have anything.

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there are no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

 

[ding]

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

Sorry but you were the one who said God didn’t write moral laws, right? How do you know?

 

[ding]

And yet you can’t show how it is irrelevant because it’s not. If you could you would, but you can’t so you just deny it with no basis whatsoever.

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there are no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

If moral laws don’t exist then why don’t all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

 

[Taz]

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

Sorry but you were the one who said God didn’t write moral laws, right? How do you know?

Because god didn’t write the 10 commandments. Moses did by the accounts.

 

[Taz]

On the basis that you’re wrong, there are no moral standards set by an invisible being, and if you think you’ve shown that, then you’re a deluded fool.

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there are no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

If moral laws don’t exist then why don’t all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

That’s an arbitrary conclusion.

 

[ding]

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

Sorry but you were the one who said God didn’t write moral laws, right? How do you know?

Because god didn’t write the 10 commandments. Moses did by the accounts.

And yet man has an innate sense of right and wrong that he didn’t put there and can’t get rid of.

 

[ding]

In the basis that I am wrong?

How am I wrong? Can you prove there is no God?

Can you prove that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Can you prove that societies and relationships which behave with virtue do not live in harmony and are ordered?

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there are no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

If moral laws don’t exist then why don’t all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

That’s an arbitrary conclusion.

If it were arbitrary there wouldn’t be a preference for right over wrong and all behaviors would lead to random outcomes.

 

[Taz]

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

Sorry but you were the one who said God didn’t write moral laws, right? How do you know?

Because god didn’t write the 10 commandments. Moses did by the accounts.

And yet man has an innate sense of right and wrong that he didn’t put there and can’t get rid of.

It’s a survival instinct which is a result of evolution.

 

[Taz]

I’m agnostic about god, no proof either way.

No society is completely ordered and harmonious. That’s the only standard that I see there.

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there are no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

If moral laws don’t exist then why don’t all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

That’s an arbitrary conclusion.

If it were arbitrary there wouldn’t be a preference for right over wrong and all behaviors would lead to random outcomes.

That’s a totally random statement. And it makes no sense.

 

[Picaro]

'they could leave if they wished, or had to convert if they stayed.' One violent protection-racket dilemma. Picaro's fascination with territorialism compares to the xian pathology whereby, when it came down to the wire, even the Catholics closed their doors to the victims-prisoners as they reeled from the violence of the State in copula with the Church. For 30,000 desaparecidos (the disappeared), though the borders of Argentina had been closed (thereby generating swastiko-schismogenetic centrifugal and centripetal forces), see Graziano F, Divine Violence: Spectacle, Psychosexuality, and Radical Christianity in the Argentine 'Dirty War.'

badger the pseudo-intellectual crank, babbling pop psychology in order to replace real historical records with specious rubbish in order to bash Da Evul Xians N Stuff. As we all mostly know, this sort of pathological hatred of xians is mostly rooted in sexual deviancies and sociopathic fear of being restrained in any way. Note the lack of rebuttals to what I said, and the invention of strawmen as a response', and some babbling screed about 'Argentina' n stuff'. lol

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.

Stirling S. Newberry

 

[alang1216]

Has there ever been a successful culture or country that lived by the Golden Rule?
Why limit it to cultures and societies? Why not use your own experiences in relationships instead.

Virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to mankind. Societies and relationships which behave with virtue will always have better relationships and be more orderly and harmonious than societies and relationships which are devoid of virtue.

You are talking about orderly and harmonious societies yet you don't seem to be able to point to any successful ones??

Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. You don't seem willing to do that.