Ok, I am addicted to internet arguments. I don’t have to have them, and the only reason to have them is to strengthen and question my assumptions and to force me to re-examine my evidence, possibly fight off some dishonesty, but other than that there is no reason.
So here is a hilarious argument I had with some wannabe philosopher about whether raping babies is morally wrong and why it is morally wrong. Now I had hoped to get deep into this discussion by actually discussing moral implications, possible good benefits (like raping the babies will cure cancer and AIDS), or whether since the babies won’t remember the experience and may be healed by the time they will start to retain memories, that it doesn’t “harm” the baby in the long term view. But instead I got this:
—-Learn the Meanings of the Words, Please—
DavinCreed: Anyone that has the ability to stop someone from raping babies, but would stand by and just watch someone raping babies, is a bad person. That includes any god.
larrycastle: You talk about a “bad” person. Says who? [...]Bad based on what?
DavinCreed: Bad is a negative. The negative effect in this case would be the damage caused to the babies[...]
larrycastle: Your reply tells me that you haven’t really thought this through. Either you believe in a transcendent morality which is in conflict with your views as an atheist or you view morality as relative.
DavinCreed: I think you may have not thought it through, otherwise you would not be using a false dichotomy I.E.: Transcendent morality or relative morality. To show that you used a false dichotomy, here are other types of morality: societal morality and empathetic morality.
larrycastle: There’s no false dichotomy in my statement. Societal morality and empathetic morality are merely versions or subsets of relative morality.
DavinCreed: It’s a false dichotomy because other possibilities exist other than the two you mentioned.
larrycastle: First, a subset of the thing is still the thing. No false dichotomy.
DavinCreed: So self imposed morality is no different than socially imposed morality? If you add in transcendent morality I could add in equally unverified moralities. So it’s a false dichotomy no matter how you look at it.
larrycastle: Self imposed or socially impossed morality are both conventional.
DavinCreed: Ah, so you don’t know English, or at least what “conventional” means. I guess if you are to abstract yourself to where you can make an agreement between yourself and yourself it could work, but that is just redefining words too much for rational discourse.
—-In the Absences of Evidence, I Can Make Up My Own—-
This next one much funnier, I really just included that first part so that you can see the response that he couldn’t see.
DavinCreed: Unless someone can explain how it isn’t bad, to have the power to stop babies from being raped but instead do nothing but watch, then god is a bad person.
larrycastle: [I]f I said that homosexuality is wrong uless someone can explain how it isn’t you’d reject my premise as you should. You know better. Things you dislike are not wrong unless proven otherwise.
DavinCreed: I explained why raping babies is bad which could be argued against, but instead you bring up a straw man fallacy about homosexuality? For that to be an equal example, you would have to explain why homosexuality is bad.
larrycastle: You’re pulling a bait and switch. Everything is relative until you want to convict God of immorality. Then you argue based on a transcendent morality. Did you? What is the reason again? You have not explained. You have begged the question.
DavinCreed: I condemn God by the same standards I would condemn myself and others. Transcendent morality is not needed. I have not begged the question, explain where I have.
larrycastle: You continue to beg the question. When I ask you to restate it since I must have missed it, you answer, “I condemn God by the same standards I would condemn myself and others. Transcendent morality is not needed.” So now I know what your answer is NOT. What IS it? Esplain Lucy!
DavinCreed: Learn to read, it’s still there. You accused me of begging the question, provide the evidence for your accusation. I have provided the evidence for the fallacies of which I have accused you.
larrycastle: I’m telling you, I DO NOT SEE IT. How else do I say it. Maybe my browser is having issues, maybe YouTube is being persnickety (both of which are very possible), or maybe you have not given a reason.
DavinCreed: If you can’t see it, then why did you accuse me of begging the question? How could you possibly accuse someone without the evidence to back it up? You flat out accused me of being illogical then asked me to present your evidence for you.
larrycastle: Sounds like a copout to me. Yes. Now I’m accusing you of lying. [...] It’s really suspicious that you don’t want to answer the question.
DavinCreed: What’s really suspicious is that you accused someone without evidence.
larrycastle: Look, I’ve gone over every post you have made in this thread and I don’t see the response you say you’ve made. The absence of that response is my evidence.
DavinCreed: The absence of my begging the question is your evidence of me begging the question?
Youtube Argument
