Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[Taz]

So what's the standard? Do you know?

Historically, the classical liberalism of natural law is extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity: Love God above all other things, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Hence, God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights. These rights are inalienable. They cannot be given, taken or transferred. They can only be violated or suppressed.

As I have written before:

Btw, it's broken.

Everyone knows that to violate the life, liberty or property of another is evil, as everyone knows they would not wish that their life, liberty or property be violated by another. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.​

So you don't know because you just made that shit up?

You're a sociopath.

Says Dingbat's sock.

I'm not Ding, sociopath.

Taz isn't a sociopath... yet.

Chatting with your sock? What up? No real friends?

Don't be that way, baby. You know you are my favorite.

Just read what ringding says, it's classic dingbat.

Did he say he liked banging your tight ass too? Cause I always liked bending you over and showing you the fifty states.

I always knew you were gay.

But you a lesbian, baby. I'mma turn you.

You think everyone is gay.

No. Just the one's who claim they are gay. Like you did when you posted as Muddah. Or were you just trolling?

Not saying that I had anything to with Muddah cuz I didn't, but do you believe everything you read online, or just here?

Sure you didn't. Wink. Wink.

I rely on my intuition in matters like these.

You mean your gaydar.

Btw, it's broken.

 

[ding]

So what's the standard? Do you know?

Historically, the classical liberalism of natural law is extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity: Love God above all other things, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Hence, God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights. These rights are inalienable. They cannot be given, taken or transferred. They can only be violated or suppressed.

As I have written before:

Btw, it's broken.

Everyone knows that to violate the life, liberty or property of another is evil, as everyone knows they would not wish that their life, liberty or property be violated by another. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.​

So you don't know because you just made that shit up?

You're a sociopath.

Says Dingbat's sock.

I'm not Ding, sociopath.

Taz isn't a sociopath... yet.

Chatting with your sock? What up? No real friends?

Don't be that way, baby. You know you are my favorite.

Just read what ringding says, it's classic dingbat.

Did he say he liked banging your tight ass too? Cause I always liked bending you over and showing you the fifty states.

I always knew you were gay.

But you a lesbian, baby. I'mma turn you.

You think everyone is gay.

No. Just the one's who claim they are gay. Like you did when you posted as Muddah. Or were you just trolling?

Not saying that I had anything to with Muddah cuz I didn't, but do you believe everything you read online, or just here?

Sure you didn't. Wink. Wink.

I rely on my intuition in matters like these.

You mean your gaydar.

Btw, it's broken.

No. I don't mean gaydar, Taz.

The only subject that elicits a serious response from you is that of gay parents raising children or gay rights in general. Everything else is a game to you where you attempt to elicit an emotional response. But the aforementioned subject, elicits an emotional response from you. In other words, it strikes a nerve.

 

[Ringtone]

Taz isn't a sociopath... yet.

A half-breed, eh?

 

[Ringtone]

I'm like Tigger in Winnie the Pooh.... I'm the only one.

Tigger tigger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

 

[eyesmile]

Returning to the interesting aspects....

Concerning Free Will and Predestination

Concerning Free Will and Predestination
by St. John of Damascus.......

Chapter 25.
..
""Further, if man is the author of no action, the faculty of deliberation is quite superfluous for to what purpose could deliberation be put if man is the master of none of his actions? for all deliberation is for the sake of action. But to prove that the fairest and most precious of man’s endowments is quite superfluous would be the height of absurdity. If then man deliberates, he deliberates with a view to action. For all deliberation is with a view to and on account of action.""..

..........

Chapter 27. Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.

""We hold, therefore, that free-will comes on the scene at the same moment as reason, and that change and alteration are congenital to all that is produced. For all that is produced is also subject to change. For those things must be subject to change whose production has its origin in change. And change consists in being brought into being out of nothing, and in transforming a substratum of matter into something different. Inanimate things, then, and things without reason undergo the aforementioned bodily changes, while the changes of things endowed with reason depend on choice.

For reason consists of a speculative and a practical part. The speculative part is the contemplation of the nature of things, and the practical consists in deliberation and defines the true reason for what is to be done. The speculative side is called mind or wisdom, and the practical side is called reason or prudence. Every one, then, who deliberates does so in the belief that the choice of what is to be done lies in his hands, that he may choose what seems best as the result of his deliberation, and having chosen may act upon it. And if this is so, free-will must necessarily be very closely related to reason.
For either man is an irrational being, or, if he is rational, he is master of his acts and endowed with free-will.

Hence also creatures without reason do not enjoy free-will: for nature leads them rather than they nature, and so they do not oppose the natural appetite, but as soon as their appetite longs after anything they rush headlong after it. But man, being rational, leads nature rather than nature him, and so when he desires aught he has the power to curb his appetite or to indulge it as he pleases. Hence also creatures devoid of reason are the subjects neither of praise nor blame, while man is the subject of both praise and blame."" ...

 

[Ringtone]

Returning to the interesting aspects....

Concerning Free Will and Predestination

Concerning Free Will and Predestination
by St. John of Damascus.......

Chapter 25.
..
""Further, if man is the author of no action, the faculty of deliberation is quite superfluous for to what purpose could deliberation be put if man is the master of none of his actions? for all deliberation is for the sake of action. But to prove that the fairest and most precious of man’s endowments is quite superfluous would be the height of absurdity. If then man deliberates, he deliberates with a view to action. For all deliberation is with a view to and on account of action.""..

..........

Chapter 27. Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.

""We hold, therefore, that free-will comes on the scene at the same moment as reason, and that change and alteration are congenital to all that is produced. For all that is produced is also subject to change. For those things must be subject to change whose production has its origin in change. And change consists in being brought into being out of nothing, and in transforming a substratum of matter into something different. Inanimate things, then, and things without reason undergo the aforementioned bodily changes, while the changes of things endowed with reason depend on choice.

For reason consists of a speculative and a practical part. The speculative part is the contemplation of the nature of things, and the practical consists in deliberation and defines the true reason for what is to be done. The speculative side is called mind or wisdom, and the practical side is called reason or prudence. Every one, then, who deliberates does so in the belief that the choice of what is to be done lies in his hands, that he may choose what seems best as the result of his deliberation, and having chosen may act upon it. And if this is so, free-will must necessarily be very closely related to reason.
For either man is an irrational being, or, if he is rational, he is master of his acts and endowed with free-will.

Hence also creatures without reason do not enjoy free-will: for nature leads them rather than they nature, and so they do not oppose the natural appetite, but as soon as their appetite longs after anything they rush headlong after it. But man, being rational, leads nature rather than nature him, and so when he desires aught he has the power to curb his appetite or to indulge it as he pleases. Hence also creatures devoid of reason are the subjects neither of praise nor blame, while man is the subject of both praise and blame."" ...

Yep. Reason guided by the logical apprehensions of truth is the essence of morality, and irrationality, the essence of evil. Men are either driven by their natural appetites, in which case, they reduce themselves to beasts, or they are driven by reason.