Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then you admit that your post was both stupid and pointless.
No, you're trying to walk back your "moral animals" post. Especially because you then presented examples of moral relativism. You are either ignorant of, or are unable to understand, the distinction between "moral" and "moral relativism."
But yet "moral" and "moral relativism" are two different terms with two different meanings.
That's why I use them in different circumstances and for different purposes. You can do the same... once you manage to figure out how they are related and what they mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And I can tell by your posts you had no idea there was a distinction.
It has been years since I trusted your judgment regarding what you can or cannot "tell" by anybody's posts.
If it's paid for by Medicaid, which is paid for by confiscating money from others and you get it merely because you exist, and requires no effort to earn the remuneration that enables one to support oneself, no. (Excluding the genuinely incapacitated.)
Now you're excluding the genuinely incapacitated from your social-darwinism ramblings? I don't think you know what you're arguing.
Of course, if you insist on looking at health care funding through the badly flawed lens of Social Darwinism, then the people who have the power to - as you put it - "confiscate" your money against your objections, well - they are clearly demonstrating superior Darwinian fitness over you.
No, you're trying to walk back your "moral animals" post.
Nonsense... you are the one who immediately ran away from that post and its point launching a long, irrelevant and ultimately error filled series of posts regarding moral relativity.
The reason we do not believe in social Darwinism is because we are moral animals. My answer is unchanged. You simply have spent the better part of a full day chasing squirrels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Especially because you then presented examples of moral relativism.
I did no such thing. I presented examples of moral that are simply different than yours. The fact that they are different proves that morals are relative. It doesn't suddenly change morals into something else.
Survival of the fittest as most understand it has nothing to do with natural selection when it comes to evolution. When a species evolves, it adapts, through genetics to the changes in it's environment. It allows it to survive long enough to pass the trait to its offspring.
It's a process that takes more than one generation and has nothing to do with who is stronger. It is "who can adapt"
No, darwinian evolution is not reality "as it is". It's just a theory.
Music is just a theory, so it is not reality. That's what I told my music theory teacher.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
