trump has become the clueless defender of the World's Murderers and Tyrants

[pismoe]

some heads of intelligence agencies aren't trusted by President Trump . , see brennan , clapper . comey and then see lisa paige , strozk , , the 'orrs' and many other leftover 'mrobama' people that President Trump considers to be unworthy of Trust FUp . Trump is the boss and a fine American as he thinks for himself FUp .

Sure he thinks for himself. He thinks "I did and do some shady things and now I have the power of my office to try to get away with those things." Which is incidentally also the reason he considers those names you mentioned as untrustworthy. The problem is of course that using his office in that way is possibly illegal in itself but sure as hell is as unethical as it comes. Which brings me back to my original assertion. This behavior would not be accepted by any other president and that's a fact. The only comparable example is Nixon and he ended up having to resign over it.

--------------------------------- i don't know your age but its my guess that you have only known a few Presidents from the 70s going to today and its my GUESS that you approve of 'clinton and mrobama' the worst 'prezidents ' and you like them . Anyway , not trying to convince you but TRUMP is old style American and is a good guy FUp ..

My knowledge of US presidents goes back further then the 70's. I'll even go as far as to call myself somewhat knowledgeable in history subjects in general although not necessarily presidential history. So again what about Trump reminds you of old style presidents? And what do you even mean by that?

-------------------------------------------- and i guess that its not really old style Presidents , TRUMP reminds me of old style AMERICAN MEN and i like that FUp .

 

[forkup]

some heads of intelligence agencies aren't trusted by President Trump . , see brennan , clapper . comey and then see lisa paige , strozk , , the 'orrs' and many other leftover 'mrobama' people that President Trump considers to be unworthy of Trust FUp . Trump is the boss and a fine American as he thinks for himself FUp .

Sure he thinks for himself. He thinks "I did and do some shady things and now I have the power of my office to try to get away with those things." Which is incidentally also the reason he considers those names you mentioned as untrustworthy. The problem is of course that using his office in that way is possibly illegal in itself but sure as hell is as unethical as it comes. Which brings me back to my original assertion. This behavior would not be accepted by any other president and that's a fact. The only comparable example is Nixon and he ended up having to resign over it.

--------------------------------- i don't know your age but its my guess that you have only known a few Presidents from the 70s going to today and its my GUESS that you approve of 'clinton and mrobama' the worst 'prezidents ' and you like them . Anyway , not trying to convince you but TRUMP is old style American and is a good guy FUp ..

My knowledge of US presidents goes back further then the 70's. I'll even go as far as to call myself somewhat knowledgeable in history subjects in general although not necessarily presidential history. So again what about Trump reminds you of old style presidents? And what do you even mean by that?

-------------------------------------------- and i guess that its not really old style Presidents , TRUMP reminds me of old style AMERICAN MEN and i like that FUp .

So same question. Define old style American men.

 

[pismoe]

See the Greatest Generation men that fought ww2 and then got out to go to work and raise families FUp !!

 

[forkup]

Seems to me, that you are trying to set up another straw man in regards to me.
-Our first argument was about morality, and it's nature. Show me were I took any position on standards of behavior that is immoral in it?
-Our second was about abortion. Show me any time, I took any position in it besides the position that you shouldn't force somebody to risk their life. In fact in those kinds of discussions I'm very careful in what position I take, and take the position that it's a choice that everybody makes and has to live with for themselves. Precisely because it's so morally ambiguous.
-So I'm curious what exactly about my previous posts is inconsistent, with me saying that people who defend Trump like Pismoe don't seem to do so out of anything but personal loyalty? Or why you think me invoking standards of behavior is hypocritical, when you can't even claim I myself act in any way as without personal standards of behavior?

Because you are literally making an argument that has the expectation that there is a standard that he should know and accept.

Well I think you can have an expectation as an American citizen that the American president doesn't try to make excuses for another countries leadership, torturing one of it's citizens to death. You think that is an unknowable expectation? I think you can have an expectation as an American citizen that the American president takes the words of his own intelligence community over that of a foreign autocratic leader. You think that is an unknowable expectation? I think you can have an expectation as an American citizen that the American president isn't actively trying to undermine the credibility of it's law enforcement agencies and the justice department in general. You think that is an unknowable expectation? I can go on and on. The point is, if any of you claim that the standard of behavior that this president displays would be accepted by anyone besides him I will call you a liar.
I find it hilarious that someone who tries to argue that morality is absolute, is now trying to argue that you can't argue that there's a standard of behavior for the President of the United States that one should know and accept.

Was that what you think I am arguing? How’d you make that leap in logic? Can you show me?

Because my argument was very narrowly focused. You are literally making a moral argument that you expect everyone to understand and accept.

In my thread with pismoe I talked about and you answered to, (trying to imply I'm hypocritical), that the standards of behavior of this president are both unprecedented and immoral. Then you said this.

Because you are literally making an argument that has the expectation that there is a standard that he should know and accept.

I figured that he was referring to Trump.

I was arguing that it is hypocritical to believe morals are relative but your expectation is that your perception of morality isn’t because you expect others to accept your version of morality.

-I love how you keep on try to distinguish morals from perception of morals. Since morals are a perception of right and wrong as looked at by humans its meaningless to differentiate. It's like trying to differentiate between the feel of silk and our perception of the feel of silk. Morality does not exist outside humanity. It requires abstract thinking to come to a construct of right and wrong.
-As to your point. Not once in this post or any other for that matter have I ever claimed my view on morality is universal. As I argued before. Morality is ever changing. I do however have a certain expectation of right and wrong depending on circumstances. In this case an expectation of morality based on society. More specific the US and by extension Western Democratic outlook. Even more specific the expectation that as a US citizen one would expect and demand of it's leadership that that leadership does hold separation of powers, an outlook to foreign policy that holds the safety of it's citizens as paramount and a respect for it's institutions as important values.
-The whole point of my reply to pismoe was exactly that I didn't think he held those values in any regard. So explain to me why you feel I'm hypocritical for pointing out that pismoe doesn't seem to hold traditional values,( Western Democratic values) as important.

 

[forkup]

See the Greatest Generation men that fought ww2 and then got out to go to work and raise families FUp !!

And you are comfortable arguing that someone who got a fake doctors note in order to not serve as one of them? Or for that matter someone who doesn't feel that someone who got captured when serving is worthy of respect? Or one who feels the need to get into a feud with the parents of someone who got killed defending the country when they speak out against him? Or who makes excuses for a countries leadership when they torture an American citizen to death.
You are really comfortable arguing that?

 

[ding]

Because you are literally making an argument that has the expectation that there is a standard that he should know and accept.

Well I think you can have an expectation as an American citizen that the American president doesn't try to make excuses for another countries leadership, torturing one of it's citizens to death. You think that is an unknowable expectation? I think you can have an expectation as an American citizen that the American president takes the words of his own intelligence community over that of a foreign autocratic leader. You think that is an unknowable expectation? I think you can have an expectation as an American citizen that the American president isn't actively trying to undermine the credibility of it's law enforcement agencies and the justice department in general. You think that is an unknowable expectation? I can go on and on. The point is, if any of you claim that the standard of behavior that this president displays would be accepted by anyone besides him I will call you a liar.
I find it hilarious that someone who tries to argue that morality is absolute, is now trying to argue that you can't argue that there's a standard of behavior for the President of the United States that one should know and accept.

Was that what you think I am arguing? How’d you make that leap in logic? Can you show me?

Because my argument was very narrowly focused. You are literally making a moral argument that you expect everyone to understand and accept.

In my thread with pismoe I talked about and you answered to, (trying to imply I'm hypocritical), that the standards of behavior of this president are both unprecedented and immoral. Then you said this.

Because you are literally making an argument that has the expectation that there is a standard that he should know and accept.

I figured that he was referring to Trump.

I was arguing that it is hypocritical to believe morals are relative but your expectation is that your perception of morality isn’t because you expect others to accept your version of morality.

-I love how you keep on try to distinguish morals from perception of morals. Since morals are a perception of right and wrong as looked at by humans its meaningless to differentiate. It's like trying to differentiate between the feel of silk and our perception of the feel of silk. Morality does not exist outside humanity. It requires abstract thinking to come to a construct of right and wrong.
-As to your point. Not once in this post or any other for that matter have I ever claimed my view on morality is universal. As I argued before. Morality is ever changing. I do however have a certain expectation of right and wrong depending on circumstances. In this case an expectation of morality based on society. More specific the US and by extension Western Democratic outlook. Even more specific the expectation that as a US citizen one would expect and demand of it's leadership that that leadership does hold separation of powers, an outlook to foreign policy that holds the safety of it's citizens as paramount and a respect for it's institutions as important values.
-The whole point of my reply to pismoe was exactly that I didn't think he held those values in any regard. So explain to me why you feel I'm hypocritical for pointing out that pismoe doesn't seem to hold traditional values,( Western Democratic values) as important.

It’s your expectation that he should accept your perception that says you do.

 

[forkup]

Well I think you can have an expectation as an American citizen that the American president doesn't try to make excuses for another countries leadership, torturing one of it's citizens to death. You think that is an unknowable expectation? I think you can have an expectation as an American citizen that the American president takes the words of his own intelligence community over that of a foreign autocratic leader. You think that is an unknowable expectation? I think you can have an expectation as an American citizen that the American president isn't actively trying to undermine the credibility of it's law enforcement agencies and the justice department in general. You think that is an unknowable expectation? I can go on and on. The point is, if any of you claim that the standard of behavior that this president displays would be accepted by anyone besides him I will call you a liar.
I find it hilarious that someone who tries to argue that morality is absolute, is now trying to argue that you can't argue that there's a standard of behavior for the President of the United States that one should know and accept.

Was that what you think I am arguing? How’d you make that leap in logic? Can you show me?

Because my argument was very narrowly focused. You are literally making a moral argument that you expect everyone to understand and accept.

In my thread with pismoe I talked about and you answered to, (trying to imply I'm hypocritical), that the standards of behavior of this president are both unprecedented and immoral. Then you said this.

Because you are literally making an argument that has the expectation that there is a standard that he should know and accept.

I figured that he was referring to Trump.

I was arguing that it is hypocritical to believe morals are relative but your expectation is that your perception of morality isn’t because you expect others to accept your version of morality.

-I love how you keep on try to distinguish morals from perception of morals. Since morals are a perception of right and wrong as looked at by humans its meaningless to differentiate. It's like trying to differentiate between the feel of silk and our perception of the feel of silk. Morality does not exist outside humanity. It requires abstract thinking to come to a construct of right and wrong.
-As to your point. Not once in this post or any other for that matter have I ever claimed my view on morality is universal. As I argued before. Morality is ever changing. I do however have a certain expectation of right and wrong depending on circumstances. In this case an expectation of morality based on society. More specific the US and by extension Western Democratic outlook. Even more specific the expectation that as a US citizen one would expect and demand of it's leadership that that leadership does hold separation of powers, an outlook to foreign policy that holds the safety of it's citizens as paramount and a respect for it's institutions as important values.
-The whole point of my reply to pismoe was exactly that I didn't think he held those values in any regard. So explain to me why you feel I'm hypocritical for pointing out that pismoe doesn't seem to hold traditional values,( Western Democratic values) as important.

It’s your expectation that he should accept your perception that says you do.

Why is it that the only thing you seem to want to do when it comes to me is misrepresent my positions? Is putting up straw mans your thing? Society always has expectations of behavior. This day and age has the expectation that one should not have sexual intercourse with a twelve year old. One should pay taxes. One should not just go and enslave other people. Two thousand years ago those expectations would have been different. The straw man that you now seem to want to set up is that I claimed that because morals are relative there is no morality that someone should adhere to. Where in any of my post have you seen me make that claim? As you asked me, I'll ask you. Can you show me how you got there?

 

[Aponi]

Think about it:

-He defended Putin over Intel claims that Russia hacked the election
-He calls Putin a Great Leader
-He defends the Saudi Crown Prince after Intel says he was responsible for the Journalist's death
-He calls Kim talented and a great guy and processes his love for him

Now he says Kim knew nothing of Wambier's torture.

What next?

Is he going to call Hitler an innocent bystander and John Wilkes Booth just another theater patron?

The man us an Imbecile!

Yes I like how obama made deals with iran and paid for hostages after sticking his head up his ass and ignored the 3 reporters tourtued to death in iran and the tourture and excution of almost 200 juvenile gay lesbian and trans kids o yes they also excuted about 200 political dissents all while he had his thumb up his ass spinning on it and making sure iran was safe not to mention his supprt of the plo black lives matter killing cops and how he released a bomber and supported cuba . for some reason you seem to have forgot about all that moron

 

[ding]

Was that what you think I am arguing? How’d you make that leap in logic? Can you show me?

Because my argument was very narrowly focused. You are literally making a moral argument that you expect everyone to understand and accept.

In my thread with pismoe I talked about and you answered to, (trying to imply I'm hypocritical), that the standards of behavior of this president are both unprecedented and immoral. Then you said this.

Because you are literally making an argument that has the expectation that there is a standard that he should know and accept.

I figured that he was referring to Trump.

I was arguing that it is hypocritical to believe morals are relative but your expectation is that your perception of morality isn’t because you expect others to accept your version of morality.

-I love how you keep on try to distinguish morals from perception of morals. Since morals are a perception of right and wrong as looked at by humans its meaningless to differentiate. It's like trying to differentiate between the feel of silk and our perception of the feel of silk. Morality does not exist outside humanity. It requires abstract thinking to come to a construct of right and wrong.
-As to your point. Not once in this post or any other for that matter have I ever claimed my view on morality is universal. As I argued before. Morality is ever changing. I do however have a certain expectation of right and wrong depending on circumstances. In this case an expectation of morality based on society. More specific the US and by extension Western Democratic outlook. Even more specific the expectation that as a US citizen one would expect and demand of it's leadership that that leadership does hold separation of powers, an outlook to foreign policy that holds the safety of it's citizens as paramount and a respect for it's institutions as important values.
-The whole point of my reply to pismoe was exactly that I didn't think he held those values in any regard. So explain to me why you feel I'm hypocritical for pointing out that pismoe doesn't seem to hold traditional values,( Western Democratic values) as important.

It’s your expectation that he should accept your perception that says you do.

Why is it that the only thing you seem to want to do when it comes to me is misrepresent my positions? Is putting up straw mans your thing? Society always has expectations of behavior. This day and age has the expectation that one should not have sexual intercourse with a twelve year old. One should pay taxes. One should not just go and enslave other people. Two thousand years ago those expectations would have been different. The straw man that you now seem to want to set up is that I claimed that because morals are relative there is no morality that someone should adhere to. Where in any of my post have you seen me make that claim? As you asked me, I'll ask you. Can you show me how you got there?

I’m not misrepresenting your position. At the heart of all quarrels and disagreements is an expectation of an absolute truth. Don’t take it personal.

 

[forkup]

In my thread with pismoe I talked about and you answered to, (trying to imply I'm hypocritical), that the standards of behavior of this president are both unprecedented and immoral. Then you said this.
I figured that he was referring to Trump.

I was arguing that it is hypocritical to believe morals are relative but your expectation is that your perception of morality isn’t because you expect others to accept your version of morality.

-I love how you keep on try to distinguish morals from perception of morals. Since morals are a perception of right and wrong as looked at by humans its meaningless to differentiate. It's like trying to differentiate between the feel of silk and our perception of the feel of silk. Morality does not exist outside humanity. It requires abstract thinking to come to a construct of right and wrong.
-As to your point. Not once in this post or any other for that matter have I ever claimed my view on morality is universal. As I argued before. Morality is ever changing. I do however have a certain expectation of right and wrong depending on circumstances. In this case an expectation of morality based on society. More specific the US and by extension Western Democratic outlook. Even more specific the expectation that as a US citizen one would expect and demand of it's leadership that that leadership does hold separation of powers, an outlook to foreign policy that holds the safety of it's citizens as paramount and a respect for it's institutions as important values.
-The whole point of my reply to pismoe was exactly that I didn't think he held those values in any regard. So explain to me why you feel I'm hypocritical for pointing out that pismoe doesn't seem to hold traditional values,( Western Democratic values) as important.

It’s your expectation that he should accept your perception that says you do.

Why is it that the only thing you seem to want to do when it comes to me is misrepresent my positions? Is putting up straw mans your thing? Society always has expectations of behavior. This day and age has the expectation that one should not have sexual intercourse with a twelve year old. One should pay taxes. One should not just go and enslave other people. Two thousand years ago those expectations would have been different. The straw man that you now seem to want to set up is that I claimed that because morals are relative there is no morality that someone should adhere to. Where in any of my post have you seen me make that claim? As you asked me, I'll ask you. Can you show me how you got there?

I’m not misrepresenting your position. At the heart of all quarrels and disagreements is an expectation of an absolute truth. Don’t take it personal.

-I don't take it personal. I take it as a debating tactic you seem to revert to quite often. When that happens I call people on it, since it's a logical fallacy. And yes you do misrepresent my position. Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong.
-I advice you to look at the conversation I had with Pismoe. What you will find that whenever I speak of morals, I always provide a framework in which to compare relative values. Here I specified an American or Western Democrat for instance and typical American presidents. And when Pismoe disagreed with those relative values I invited him to show his framework of relative values. He first used Old style American presidents as a framework in which to compare, and when queried further to specify actual values, he conceded that didn't work and changed his framework to old style American men. Which he then further specified as the generation of American men that fought in WW2. I then asked him to give an actual bases for comparison because I could not find any similarities between his statements and his stated bases for comparison. He wasn't able to provide that.
- What you will not find in any part of the conversation is me claiming that he should accept any of the morals I stated. As a matter of fact I flat out said that he didn't follow the morals I stated.
-I think when you first started talking to me I said that I don't talk to people because they agree with me (same values). I talk to them because they disagree with me. It's hard to learn anything new if the only source of information you get, is a source that tells you what you already believe. The only thing I ask is that they try to explain it to me. To that end I ask questions. This doesn't mean I'll change my mind, (although it has happened before). What it does mean that when you explain something I will at least try to be open to it.

 

[ding]

I was arguing that it is hypocritical to believe morals are relative but your expectation is that your perception of morality isn’t because you expect others to accept your version of morality.

-I love how you keep on try to distinguish morals from perception of morals. Since morals are a perception of right and wrong as looked at by humans its meaningless to differentiate. It's like trying to differentiate between the feel of silk and our perception of the feel of silk. Morality does not exist outside humanity. It requires abstract thinking to come to a construct of right and wrong.
-As to your point. Not once in this post or any other for that matter have I ever claimed my view on morality is universal. As I argued before. Morality is ever changing. I do however have a certain expectation of right and wrong depending on circumstances. In this case an expectation of morality based on society. More specific the US and by extension Western Democratic outlook. Even more specific the expectation that as a US citizen one would expect and demand of it's leadership that that leadership does hold separation of powers, an outlook to foreign policy that holds the safety of it's citizens as paramount and a respect for it's institutions as important values.
-The whole point of my reply to pismoe was exactly that I didn't think he held those values in any regard. So explain to me why you feel I'm hypocritical for pointing out that pismoe doesn't seem to hold traditional values,( Western Democratic values) as important.

It’s your expectation that he should accept your perception that says you do.

Why is it that the only thing you seem to want to do when it comes to me is misrepresent my positions? Is putting up straw mans your thing? Society always has expectations of behavior. This day and age has the expectation that one should not have sexual intercourse with a twelve year old. One should pay taxes. One should not just go and enslave other people. Two thousand years ago those expectations would have been different. The straw man that you now seem to want to set up is that I claimed that because morals are relative there is no morality that someone should adhere to. Where in any of my post have you seen me make that claim? As you asked me, I'll ask you. Can you show me how you got there?

I’m not misrepresenting your position. At the heart of all quarrels and disagreements is an expectation of an absolute truth. Don’t take it personal.

-I don't take it personal. I take it as a debating tactic you seem to revert to quite often. When that happens I call people on it, since it's a logical fallacy. And yes you do misrepresent my position. Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong.
-I advice you to look at the conversation I had with Pismoe. What you will find that whenever I speak of morals, I always provide a framework in which to compare relative values. Here I specified an American or Western Democrat for instance and typical American presidents. And when Pismoe disagreed with those relative values I invited him to show his framework of relative values. He first used Old style American presidents as a framework in which to compare, and when queried further to specify actual values, he conceded that didn't work and changed his framework to old style American men. Which he then further specified as the generation of American men that fought in WW2. I then asked him to give an actual bases for comparison because I could not find any similarities between his statements and his stated bases for comparison. He wasn't able to provide that.
- What you will not find in any part of the conversation is me claiming that he should accept any of the morals I stated. As a matter of fact I flat out said that he didn't follow the morals I stated.
-I think when you first started talking to me I said that I don't talk to people because they agree with me (same values). I talk to them because they disagree with me. It's hard to learn anything new if the only source of information you get, is a source that tells you what you already believe. The only thing I ask is that they try to explain it to me. To that end I ask questions. This doesn't mean I'll change my mind, (although it has happened before). What it does mean that when you explain something I will at least try to be open to it.

I’m not really debating you. You don’t have a leg to stand on. I’ve alrea won the point.

 

[forkup]

-I love how you keep on try to distinguish morals from perception of morals. Since morals are a perception of right and wrong as looked at by humans its meaningless to differentiate. It's like trying to differentiate between the feel of silk and our perception of the feel of silk. Morality does not exist outside humanity. It requires abstract thinking to come to a construct of right and wrong.
-As to your point. Not once in this post or any other for that matter have I ever claimed my view on morality is universal. As I argued before. Morality is ever changing. I do however have a certain expectation of right and wrong depending on circumstances. In this case an expectation of morality based on society. More specific the US and by extension Western Democratic outlook. Even more specific the expectation that as a US citizen one would expect and demand of it's leadership that that leadership does hold separation of powers, an outlook to foreign policy that holds the safety of it's citizens as paramount and a respect for it's institutions as important values.
-The whole point of my reply to pismoe was exactly that I didn't think he held those values in any regard. So explain to me why you feel I'm hypocritical for pointing out that pismoe doesn't seem to hold traditional values,( Western Democratic values) as important.

It’s your expectation that he should accept your perception that says you do.

Why is it that the only thing you seem to want to do when it comes to me is misrepresent my positions? Is putting up straw mans your thing? Society always has expectations of behavior. This day and age has the expectation that one should not have sexual intercourse with a twelve year old. One should pay taxes. One should not just go and enslave other people. Two thousand years ago those expectations would have been different. The straw man that you now seem to want to set up is that I claimed that because morals are relative there is no morality that someone should adhere to. Where in any of my post have you seen me make that claim? As you asked me, I'll ask you. Can you show me how you got there?

I’m not misrepresenting your position. At the heart of all quarrels and disagreements is an expectation of an absolute truth. Don’t take it personal.

-I don't take it personal. I take it as a debating tactic you seem to revert to quite often. When that happens I call people on it, since it's a logical fallacy. And yes you do misrepresent my position. Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong.
-I advice you to look at the conversation I had with Pismoe. What you will find that whenever I speak of morals, I always provide a framework in which to compare relative values. Here I specified an American or Western Democrat for instance and typical American presidents. And when Pismoe disagreed with those relative values I invited him to show his framework of relative values. He first used Old style American presidents as a framework in which to compare, and when queried further to specify actual values, he conceded that didn't work and changed his framework to old style American men. Which he then further specified as the generation of American men that fought in WW2. I then asked him to give an actual bases for comparison because I could not find any similarities between his statements and his stated bases for comparison. He wasn't able to provide that.
- What you will not find in any part of the conversation is me claiming that he should accept any of the morals I stated. As a matter of fact I flat out said that he didn't follow the morals I stated.
-I think when you first started talking to me I said that I don't talk to people because they agree with me (same values). I talk to them because they disagree with me. It's hard to learn anything new if the only source of information you get, is a source that tells you what you already believe. The only thing I ask is that they try to explain it to me. To that end I ask questions. This doesn't mean I'll change my mind, (although it has happened before). What it does mean that when you explain something I will at least try to be open to it.

I’m not really debating you. You don’t have a leg to stand on. I’ve alrea won the point.

Lol you said that the last time to. That was until of course other people looked at it and disagreed with your assessment.
Let's try this. "Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong." Can you do this?

 

[ding]

It’s your expectation that he should accept your perception that says you do.

Why is it that the only thing you seem to want to do when it comes to me is misrepresent my positions? Is putting up straw mans your thing? Society always has expectations of behavior. This day and age has the expectation that one should not have sexual intercourse with a twelve year old. One should pay taxes. One should not just go and enslave other people. Two thousand years ago those expectations would have been different. The straw man that you now seem to want to set up is that I claimed that because morals are relative there is no morality that someone should adhere to. Where in any of my post have you seen me make that claim? As you asked me, I'll ask you. Can you show me how you got there?

I’m not misrepresenting your position. At the heart of all quarrels and disagreements is an expectation of an absolute truth. Don’t take it personal.

-I don't take it personal. I take it as a debating tactic you seem to revert to quite often. When that happens I call people on it, since it's a logical fallacy. And yes you do misrepresent my position. Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong.
-I advice you to look at the conversation I had with Pismoe. What you will find that whenever I speak of morals, I always provide a framework in which to compare relative values. Here I specified an American or Western Democrat for instance and typical American presidents. And when Pismoe disagreed with those relative values I invited him to show his framework of relative values. He first used Old style American presidents as a framework in which to compare, and when queried further to specify actual values, he conceded that didn't work and changed his framework to old style American men. Which he then further specified as the generation of American men that fought in WW2. I then asked him to give an actual bases for comparison because I could not find any similarities between his statements and his stated bases for comparison. He wasn't able to provide that.
- What you will not find in any part of the conversation is me claiming that he should accept any of the morals I stated. As a matter of fact I flat out said that he didn't follow the morals I stated.
-I think when you first started talking to me I said that I don't talk to people because they agree with me (same values). I talk to them because they disagree with me. It's hard to learn anything new if the only source of information you get, is a source that tells you what you already believe. The only thing I ask is that they try to explain it to me. To that end I ask questions. This doesn't mean I'll change my mind, (although it has happened before). What it does mean that when you explain something I will at least try to be open to it.

I’m not really debating you. You don’t have a leg to stand on. I’ve alrea won the point.

Lol you said that the last time to. That was until of course other people looked at it and disagreed with your assessment.
Let's try this. "Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong." Can you do this?

Your memory is fuzzy.

Morals aren’t relative. Perceptions of morals are relative. If you believed morals were relative you wouldn’t have an expectation that others must agree with your perception of morals because morals could be anything people wanted.

 

[forkup]

Why is it that the only thing you seem to want to do when it comes to me is misrepresent my positions? Is putting up straw mans your thing? Society always has expectations of behavior. This day and age has the expectation that one should not have sexual intercourse with a twelve year old. One should pay taxes. One should not just go and enslave other people. Two thousand years ago those expectations would have been different. The straw man that you now seem to want to set up is that I claimed that because morals are relative there is no morality that someone should adhere to. Where in any of my post have you seen me make that claim? As you asked me, I'll ask you. Can you show me how you got there?

I’m not misrepresenting your position. At the heart of all quarrels and disagreements is an expectation of an absolute truth. Don’t take it personal.

-I don't take it personal. I take it as a debating tactic you seem to revert to quite often. When that happens I call people on it, since it's a logical fallacy. And yes you do misrepresent my position. Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong.
-I advice you to look at the conversation I had with Pismoe. What you will find that whenever I speak of morals, I always provide a framework in which to compare relative values. Here I specified an American or Western Democrat for instance and typical American presidents. And when Pismoe disagreed with those relative values I invited him to show his framework of relative values. He first used Old style American presidents as a framework in which to compare, and when queried further to specify actual values, he conceded that didn't work and changed his framework to old style American men. Which he then further specified as the generation of American men that fought in WW2. I then asked him to give an actual bases for comparison because I could not find any similarities between his statements and his stated bases for comparison. He wasn't able to provide that.
- What you will not find in any part of the conversation is me claiming that he should accept any of the morals I stated. As a matter of fact I flat out said that he didn't follow the morals I stated.
-I think when you first started talking to me I said that I don't talk to people because they agree with me (same values). I talk to them because they disagree with me. It's hard to learn anything new if the only source of information you get, is a source that tells you what you already believe. The only thing I ask is that they try to explain it to me. To that end I ask questions. This doesn't mean I'll change my mind, (although it has happened before). What it does mean that when you explain something I will at least try to be open to it.

I’m not really debating you. You don’t have a leg to stand on. I’ve alrea won the point.

Lol you said that the last time to. That was until of course other people looked at it and disagreed with your assessment.
Let's try this. "Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong." Can you do this?

Your memory is fuzzy.

Morals aren’t relative. Perceptions of morals are relative. If you believed morals were relative you wouldn’t have an expectation that others must agree with your perception of morals because morals could be anything people wanted.

-Please point out where in the conversation I claimed you or anybody had to agree with my moral outlook? For the hundred time. Moral relativism does not imply that there are no morals, simply that morals change according to circumstances. Having an expectation of moral outlook is perfectly possible if you provide a framework. I can compare somebodies values with those of society. In what way is that in any way inconsistent?
-Give me a single moral absolute? Something that isn't subject to change? I dare you.

 

[ding]

I’m not misrepresenting your position. At the heart of all quarrels and disagreements is an expectation of an absolute truth. Don’t take it personal.

-I don't take it personal. I take it as a debating tactic you seem to revert to quite often. When that happens I call people on it, since it's a logical fallacy. And yes you do misrepresent my position. Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong.
-I advice you to look at the conversation I had with Pismoe. What you will find that whenever I speak of morals, I always provide a framework in which to compare relative values. Here I specified an American or Western Democrat for instance and typical American presidents. And when Pismoe disagreed with those relative values I invited him to show his framework of relative values. He first used Old style American presidents as a framework in which to compare, and when queried further to specify actual values, he conceded that didn't work and changed his framework to old style American men. Which he then further specified as the generation of American men that fought in WW2. I then asked him to give an actual bases for comparison because I could not find any similarities between his statements and his stated bases for comparison. He wasn't able to provide that.
- What you will not find in any part of the conversation is me claiming that he should accept any of the morals I stated. As a matter of fact I flat out said that he didn't follow the morals I stated.
-I think when you first started talking to me I said that I don't talk to people because they agree with me (same values). I talk to them because they disagree with me. It's hard to learn anything new if the only source of information you get, is a source that tells you what you already believe. The only thing I ask is that they try to explain it to me. To that end I ask questions. This doesn't mean I'll change my mind, (although it has happened before). What it does mean that when you explain something I will at least try to be open to it.

I’m not really debating you. You don’t have a leg to stand on. I’ve alrea won the point.

Lol you said that the last time to. That was until of course other people looked at it and disagreed with your assessment.
Let's try this. "Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong." Can you do this?

Your memory is fuzzy.

Morals aren’t relative. Perceptions of morals are relative. If you believed morals were relative you wouldn’t have an expectation that others must agree with your perception of morals because morals could be anything people wanted.

-Please point out where in the conversation I claimed you or anybody had to agree with my moral outlook? For the hundred time. Moral relativism does not imply that there are no morals, simply that morals change according to circumstances. Having an expectation of moral outlook is perfectly possible if you provide a framework. I can compare somebodies values with those of society. In what way is that in any way inconsistent?
-Give me a single moral absolute? Something that isn't subject to change? I dare you.

I didn’t say moral relativism implied no morals. Moral relativism is different perceptions of morality.

It’s literally the basis for your existing quarrel.

You both have different perceptions of right and wrong and your expectation is that each of you believe you are right and that the other should not only understand it but accept it.

I am not interested in debating the merits of either side. I am merely pointing out the logical conclusion of the implications of your quarrel.

 

[forkup]

-I don't take it personal. I take it as a debating tactic you seem to revert to quite often. When that happens I call people on it, since it's a logical fallacy. And yes you do misrepresent my position. Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong.
-I advice you to look at the conversation I had with Pismoe. What you will find that whenever I speak of morals, I always provide a framework in which to compare relative values. Here I specified an American or Western Democrat for instance and typical American presidents. And when Pismoe disagreed with those relative values I invited him to show his framework of relative values. He first used Old style American presidents as a framework in which to compare, and when queried further to specify actual values, he conceded that didn't work and changed his framework to old style American men. Which he then further specified as the generation of American men that fought in WW2. I then asked him to give an actual bases for comparison because I could not find any similarities between his statements and his stated bases for comparison. He wasn't able to provide that.
- What you will not find in any part of the conversation is me claiming that he should accept any of the morals I stated. As a matter of fact I flat out said that he didn't follow the morals I stated.
-I think when you first started talking to me I said that I don't talk to people because they agree with me (same values). I talk to them because they disagree with me. It's hard to learn anything new if the only source of information you get, is a source that tells you what you already believe. The only thing I ask is that they try to explain it to me. To that end I ask questions. This doesn't mean I'll change my mind, (although it has happened before). What it does mean that when you explain something I will at least try to be open to it.

I’m not really debating you. You don’t have a leg to stand on. I’ve alrea won the point.

Lol you said that the last time to. That was until of course other people looked at it and disagreed with your assessment.
Let's try this. "Unless you can somehow show that saying morals are relative means that one can not judge right from wrong." Can you do this?

Your memory is fuzzy.

Morals aren’t relative. Perceptions of morals are relative. If you believed morals were relative you wouldn’t have an expectation that others must agree with your perception of morals because morals could be anything people wanted.

-Please point out where in the conversation I claimed you or anybody had to agree with my moral outlook? For the hundred time. Moral relativism does not imply that there are no morals, simply that morals change according to circumstances. Having an expectation of moral outlook is perfectly possible if you provide a framework. I can compare somebodies values with those of society. In what way is that in any way inconsistent?
-Give me a single moral absolute? Something that isn't subject to change? I dare you.

I didn’t say moral relativism implied no morals. Moral relativism is different perceptions of morality.

It’s literally the basis for your existing quarrel.

You both have different perceptions of right and wrong and your expectation is that each of you believe you are right and that the other should not only understand it but accept it.

I am not interested in debating the merits of either side. I am merely pointing out the logical conclusion of the implications of your quarrel.

-Tell me how the logical implication of me telling Pismoe, that Trump isn't following the standards of behavior of a typical president and that when it comes to Trump, he and the people on the right don't hold any standard of behavior. Something he doesn't deny by the way. That I'm a hypocrite? Not once did I claim he should follow my version of morality. In fact I invited him to show his version of it. Something he declined.
-You decided to interject yourself in the quarrel which I don't mind but then back it up.

 

[deanrd]

Trump's not clueless.

He wants to be one of them.

 

[xyz]

Speaking of Bolsonaro, their recent meeting at the White House...

Drumpf said he wants Brazil to be in NATO, an organization he is opposed to. Drumpf is not only a traitor, he is a dangerous traitor. I hope he won't be in office for much longer.