The Bright Shining Lie

[rtwngAvngr]

Moral relativists HAVE a moral code, though they deride morality in others. Their moral code is socialism.

 

[5stringJeff]

Then the burden of proof would have to be on said socialists to prove why their moral code is superior to other moral codes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Then the burden of proof would have to be on said socialists to prove why their moral code is superior to other moral codes.

Their answer to this is the general appeal to puerile envy. "it's not fair that (insert aspect of reality)"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Then the burden of proof would have to be on said socialists to prove why their moral code is superior to other moral codes.

Dint'ja know? We're too inferior to understand their superior moral code. That's why they won't burden themselves to come up with any real proof.

 

[deaddude]

Then the burden of proof would have to be on said socialists to prove why their moral code is superior to other moral codes.

No the burden of proof is on RWA to prove that the only possible ethical out come of moral reletivism is socialism. All he did was say moral relativism = socialism, with no evidence to back it up. It is the exact same as a Liberal saying Bush = Satan. While it is possible that moral relativism = socialism just as it is possible that Bush = Satan, niether provides an argument other than an oppinion of moral relativists or Bush respectively.

 

[freeandfun1]

It is a good book!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No the burden of proof is on RWA to prove that the only possible ethical out come of moral reletivism is socialism. All he did was say moral relativism = socialism, with no evidence to back it up. It is the exact same as a Liberal saying Bush = Satan. While it is possible that moral relativism = socialism just as it is possible that Bush = Satan, niether provides an argument other than an oppinion of moral relativists or Bush respectively.

I didn't say it was the only outcome. It's just that an overwhelming percent of moral relativists are socialists. They may lie about it like most libs, but they ARE socialists.

Moral relativism is an attempt to persuade individuals in general to disengage their judgement from their own lives and world, and to defer to liberal judges for morality and right and wrong. It's true. I don't know how to prove it to you except to suggest you take off your blinders.

 

[deaddude]

So moral relativism tries to convert others into defering judgement to liberal judges for morality. Yet you ask me to defer to your judgement of moral relativists without any proof other than the cliched phrase of

"Take off your blinders"

Sounds like a Micheal Moore catch phrase.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So moral relativism tries to convert others into defering judgement to liberal judges for morality.

Yes. It appears your learning. How splendid!

Yet you ask me to defer to your judgement of moral relativists without any proof other than the cliched phrase of

Go read some new age or liberal dogma and it will support my assertions. those who refuse to accept the liberal view of the world are labelled and villified.

"Take off your blinders"

Sounds like a Micheal Moore catch phrase.

It's a good one, despite the rotundity of it's pompous author.

 

[deaddude]

Yes. It appears your learning. How splendid!

dont get your hopes up, merely trying to understand your point of view

Go read some new age or liberal dogma and it will support my assertions. those who refuse to accept the liberal view of the world are labelled and villified.

Any examples of what qualfies as liberal dogma

It's a good one, despite the rotundity of it's pompous author.

Its overuse has made it meaningless and has now just become a catch phrase for conspiracy theorists with no proof.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

dont get your hopes up, merely trying to understand your point of view

You nailed it.

Any examples of what qualfies as liberal dogma

Sure. "the rich are evil". "It's not fair that ceo's make that much money." "Anyone who REALLY believes in god is stupid." "Religion has caused nothing but war."

Its overuse has made it meaningless and has now just become a catch phrase for conspiracy theorists with no proof.

No. It's meaning is still fine. You see, blinders are something people put horses to restrict their field of view, so they don't panic. Liberals have metaphorical blinders, because they refuse to see (blind) facts which contradict their preconceived worldview.

How do you feel about always being wrong?

 

[deaddude]

yes the general meaning of the blinders metaphore is still there but the specifics have been muddled by overuse, better?

Sure. "the rich are evil". "It's not fair that ceo's make that much money." "Anyone who REALLY believes in god is stupid." "Religion has caused nothing but war."

Those titles cant be real, damn those are asinine. Still those are obviously extreme examples, if you are baseing your entire oppinion of relativists and liberals in general on these extreme perspectives then your view of them is skewed.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

yes the general meaning of the blinders metaphore is still there but the specifics have been muddled by overuse, better?

The meaning is still crystal clear. It is, perhaps, overused. I will give you that. I'm nothing if not compulsively fair.

Those titles cant be real, damn those are asinine. Still those are obviously extreme examples, if you are baseing your entire oppinion of relativists and liberals in general on these extreme perspectives then your view of them is skewed.

They're not extreme at all. They're quite typical. Be honest.

 

[deaddude]

The meaning is still crystal clear. It is, perhaps, overused. I will give you that. I'm nothing if not compulsively fair.


They're not extreme at all. They're quite typical. Be honest.

To be honest they are extremely extreme. And also hypocritical

I am a lib and I find those asinine.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

To be honest they are extremely extreme. And also hypocritical

I am a lib and I find those asinine.

Well, they're typical lib blather. You're probably lying about what you believe.

 

[deaddude]

Not having read the books, I was refering to the titles. Which I do find asinine.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not having read the books, I was refering to the titles. Which I do find asinine.

They're not books. They's just quotes of typical lib dogma. They're just single sentences, in quotations to indicate they are the words of libs.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

They're not books. They's just quotes of typical lib dogma. They're just single sentences, in quotations to indicate they are the words of libs.

Fascinating to watch you argue with a liberal in liberalspeak.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Fascinating to watch you argue with a liberal in liberalspeak.

Thanks man. I've seen you woop some lib tail too. Ain't it fun?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Thanks man. I've seen you woop some lib tail too. Ain't it fun?

That it is, but you've got some real style.