@DS, it so happens that you are agreeing with us unwittingly. . .

How does a democracy work? Force of numbers.

How does a monarchy or dictatorship works? Might is right.

How does a society function? Simple, collective agreement of right thinking individuals. Right thinking of course entirely subjective, see? We're all hypocrites. Deal with it.

For example, i abhor polygamy. I think its immoral but i'm in Nigeria so what do i do. . . I shut up until i either have the numbers or power on my side to declare it immoral and arrest every Alhaji

On r.ape, do you see muslims screaming blue murder when a 40yr old man pokes a 13yr old girl? Of course Allah thinks it perfectly fine so who are you to declare it immoral? Subjective. . . See?

What does Yahweh say about Slavery. . . Perfectly ok with it. Pray tell DS, where's this your elusive objective morality?

What does it say to muslims about pedo? Polygamy?
What does it say to us about homo? Why are we all arguing about it?
Grow up man and stop the silly appeal to emotions. There's no objective morality anywhere else we won't have a democracy or society. . .everybody will have exactly the same opinion about EVERY issue and we won't need laws to rein in dissenters.

Dissenters. . . Who decides they are that? See?

So far, I have made certain opinions from the different views I have read on the topic on this thread.

I will however be happy if anyone can throw more light on why we have subjective morality, since I believe we are all made from the same substances and..... from one source?

deleuche: So far, I have made certain opinions from the different views I have read on the topic on this thread.

I will however be happy if anyone can throw more light on why we have subjective morality, since I believe we are all made from the same substances and..... from one source?

Evolution.

Mr Troll: Evolution.

Please explain further. Even if we did evolve, our kind will all be from the same kind of ancestors and made from the same kind of substances, chemicals, brain matters etc

so why the differences in views?

Mr Troll: Evolution.

Noted and bookmarked.

deleuche: So far, I have made certain opinions from the different views I have read on the topic on this thread.

I will however be happy if anyone can throw more light on why we have subjective morality, since I believe we are all made from the same substances and..... from one source?

. . . along with what he replied to for posterity.

deleuche:

Please explain further. Even if we did evolve, our kind will all be from the same kind of ancestors and made from the same kind of substances, chemicals, brain matters etc

so why the differences in views?

I will advise you to download pdf like Brain Facts on Google and go to TED and see how different brain patterns and feautures affect different people and result in different moral choices. Since brains evolved differently in different species and in humans there are different moral choices.

Simply put, while we may be made of the same substances they are arranged differently (eg same mud different huts, same bricks different houses) hence different morals by the person.

Uyi Iredia:

I will advise you to download pdf like Brain Facts on Google and go to TED and see how different brain patterns and feautures affect different people and result in different moral choices. Since brains evolved differently in different species and in humans there are different moral choices.

Simply put, while we may be made of the same substances they are arranged differently (eg same mud different huts, same bricks different houses) hence different morals by the person.

This is good. Also, if i may add, we are all made of the same stuff. Yes, humans and other animals, plants too, even inanimate rocks.

I will paraphrase Carl Sagan here. . ."at the end of the day, we are all made of star dust. . . ."

Even twins with the same genes don't end up with the same fingerprints. Similar, true, but different still

Uyi Iredia:
I see I wonder how early Thracians, Huns and Celts survived

They didn't actually. Are they the powers to be reckoned with that they once were? Are they even a society today? No.


Thracians:
The ancient languages of these people had already become extinct and their cultural influence was highly reduced due to the repeated barbaric invasions of the Balkans by Celts, Huns, Goths, and Sarmatians, accompanied by hellenization, romanization and later slavicization. After they were subjugated by Alexander the Great and consecutively by the Roman Empire, most of the Thracians eventually became hellenized (in the provinces of Thrace) or romanised (in Moesia and Dacia). In the 6th century, some Thraco-Romans and hellenized Thracians (i.e. Byzantines) south of the Danube River made contacts with the invading Slavs and were later eventually slavicised.[49][50] One of the three primary ancestral groups of modern Bulgarians are the Thracians.

Celts:
Under Caesar the Romans conquered Celtic Gaul, and from Claudius onward the Roman empire absorbed parts of Britain. Roman local government of these regions closely mirrored pre-Roman tribal boundaries, and archaeological finds suggest native involvement in local government.

The native peoples under Roman rule became Romanised and keen to adopt Roman ways. Celtic art had already incorporated classical influences, and surviving Gallo-Roman pieces interpret classical subjects or keep faith with old traditions despite a Roman overlay.

Huns:
After the breakdown of the Hun Empire, they never regained their lost glory. One reason was that the Huns never fully established the mechanisms of a state, such as bureaucracy and taxes, unlike Bulgars, Magyars or the Golden Horde. Once disorganized, the Huns were absorbed by more organized polities. Like the Avars after them, once the Hun political unity failed there was no way to re-create it, especially because the Huns had become a multiethnic empire even before Attila. The Hun Empire included, at least nominally, a great host of diverse peoples, each of whom may be considered 'successors' of the Huns. However, given that the Huns were a political creation, and not a consolidated people, or nation, their defeat in 454 marked the end of that political creation. Newer polities which later arose might have consisted of people formerly in the Hun confederacy, and carrying closely related steppe cultures, but they were new political creations. Later historians provide brief hints of the dispersal and renaming of Attila's people. According to tradition, after Ellac's defeat and death, his brothers ruled over two separate, but closely related hordes on the steppes north of the Black Sea. Dengizich is believed to have been king (khan) of the Kutrigur Bulgars, and Ernakh king (khan) of the Utigur Bulgars, whilst Procopius claimed that Kutrigurs and Utigurs were named after, and led by two of the sons of Ernakh. Such distinctions are uncertain and the situation is not likely to have been so clear cut. Some Huns remained in Pannonia for some time before they were slaughtered by Goths. Others took refuge within the East Roman Empire, namely in Dacia Ripensis and Scythia Minor. Possibly, other Huns and nomadic groups retreated to the steppe. Indeed, subsequently, new confederations appear such as Kutrigur, Utigur, Onogur / (Onoghur), Sarigur, etc., which were collectively called "Huns","Bulgarian Huns", or "Bulgars". Similarly, the 6th century Slavs were presented as Hun groups by Procopius.


@ topic

Mr Troll:
Before Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two Apple Tablets , the indigenous people of India, China and the Aztecs already knew that murder, stealing and lying was detrimental to their society and therefore evil.

The early Indian people had a creator god named Brahma.

The Chinese had Nü Kua, and some believed in Pangu.

The Aztecs also believed in a supreme creator of all: Ometeuctli

^^^
Exactly! So is it safe then to conclude that Yahweh alone did not have the monopoly on morality? And if, as it is now shown that many ancient gods from which people of old purportedly derived their morality from actually do not exist, what does it now say about Yahweh, the reigning champ now?

^^^ How is this discussion about Yahweh? You are lost.

Deep Sight:
^^^ How is this discussion about Yahweh? You are lost.

You do realise i was refering to a christian?

or are you suggesting that all generic gods qualify as true in your book?

The Minute you bring in a deity into the theme of morality, you will always be on the move trying to hit a moving target. if you consider the nature of man, his behavior to his fellow man across the spectrum of societies, you will realize that morality is a learning that evolves and matures with time and reasoning, it has absolutely nothing to do with some supreme architect or some god(s).. it simply has to do with the expansion of knowledge and intelligence; the more society advances and understand several socio-economic themes which had previously been under the tutelage of religion, it becomes more humane, less barbaric and definitely more reasonable. that is not to say it is perfect (only religious morality makes that claim) it is evolving, thus working out the kinks

voltron: The Minute you bring in a deity into the theme of morality, you will always be on the move trying to hit a moving target. if you consider the nature of man, his behavior to his fellow man across the spectrum of societies, you will realize that morality is a learning that evolves and matures with time and reasoning, it has absolutely nothing to do with some supreme architect or some god(s).. it simply has to do with the expansion of knowledge and intelligence; the more society advances and understand several socio-economic themes which had previously been under the tutelage of religion, it becomes more humane, less barbaric and definitely more reasonable. that is not to say it is perfect (only religious morality makes that claim) it is evolving, thus working out the kinks

There was, therefore, nothing wrong with every ethnic genocide in history, given that that was the stage of moral evolution gasping for existence at the time that each such genocide occurred.

That is your position.

By the way, you will note that my arguments on this thread have largely avoided Deity as origin of morality: not to say that it is not.

Mr Troll: You do realise i was refering to a christian?

or are you suggesting that all generic gods qualify as true in your book?

Virtually all religions and cultures have a concept of a creator, an eternal source of all things. That they call and name it differently, should only be as surprising as the fact that they call and name dogs differently.

Dogs still remain dogs though.

Deep Sight:

There was, therefore, nothing wrong with every ethnic genocide in history, given that that was the stage of moral evolution gasping for existence at the time that each such genocide occurred.

That is your position.

By the way, you will note that my arguments on this thread have largely avoided Deity as origin of morality: not to say that it is not.

That is my thought (as in open to new information) not my position... much of the genocide (as much as was in the times before it) were based on Socio-Economic and Political factors (under the guise of Divine License or some other Higher cause). There are Great Thinkers of each Age but you cannot totally remove the more common causes of Social Conflicts as having a drag on the thinking of society at those times. The Evolution of Thought (i prefer that to morals) is not removed from the influence of its environment. Hilter was worshiped, so was Pol pot and many other morally bankrupt icons but much of the population founded their morals on such leaders and their ideals.

Given that Man has always had a concept of a Creator, it is normal to ascribe such high founded themes such as morality to a Creator, I think not. e.g If I am an Evil Father and bore a son, who lived under my tutelage and somehow decided to be Good.. would you say my Moral leaning was responsible for this anomaly or would you surmise that there are built-in mechanisms of thought (yet to be fully understood) that allows Man to evaluate conditions and decide what is Evil and what is Good. It is the faculties of thought that allow us to do this not some global database of creeds and commandments.

texanomaly:

They didn't actually. Are they the powers to be reckoned with that they once were? Are they even a society today? No.


Thracians:
The ancient languages of these people had already become extinct and their cultural influence was highly reduced due to the repeated barbaric invasions of the Balkans by Celts, Huns, Goths, and Sarmatians, accompanied by hellenization, romanization and later slavicization. After they were subjugated by Alexander the Great and consecutively by the Roman Empire, most of the Thracians eventually became hellenized (in the provinces of Thrace) or romanised (in Moesia and Dacia). In the 6th century, some Thraco-Romans and hellenized Thracians (i.e. Byzantines) south of the Danube River made contacts with the invading Slavs and were later eventually slavicised.[49][50] One of the three primary ancestral groups of modern Bulgarians are the Thracians.

Celts:
Under Caesar the Romans conquered Celtic Gaul, and from Claudius onward the Roman empire absorbed parts of Britain. Roman local government of these regions closely mirrored pre-Roman tribal boundaries, and archaeological finds suggest native involvement in local government.

The native peoples under Roman rule became Romanised and keen to adopt Roman ways. Celtic art had already incorporated classical influences, and surviving Gallo-Roman pieces interpret classical subjects or keep faith with old traditions despite a Roman overlay.

Huns:
After the breakdown of the Hun Empire, they never regained their lost glory. One reason was that the Huns never fully established the mechanisms of a state, such as bureaucracy and taxes, unlike Bulgars, Magyars or the Golden Horde. Once disorganized, the Huns were absorbed by more organized polities. Like the Avars after them, once the Hun political unity failed there was no way to re-create it, especially because the Huns had become a multiethnic empire even before Attila. The Hun Empire included, at least nominally, a great host of diverse peoples, each of whom may be considered 'successors' of the Huns. However, given that the Huns were a political creation, and not a consolidated people, or nation, their defeat in 454 marked the end of that political creation. Newer polities which later arose might have consisted of people formerly in the Hun confederacy, and carrying closely related steppe cultures, but they were new political creations. Later historians provide brief hints of the dispersal and renaming of Attila's people. According to tradition, after Ellac's defeat and death, his brothers ruled over two separate, but closely related hordes on the steppes north of the Black Sea. Dengizich is believed to have been king (khan) of the Kutrigur Bulgars, and Ernakh king (khan) of the Utigur Bulgars, whilst Procopius claimed that Kutrigurs and Utigurs were named after, and led by two of the sons of Ernakh. Such distinctions are uncertain and the situation is not likely to have been so clear cut. Some Huns remained in Pannonia for some time before they were slaughtered by Goths. Others took refuge within the East Roman Empire, namely in Dacia Ripensis and Scythia Minor. Possibly, other Huns and nomadic groups retreated to the steppe. Indeed, subsequently, new confederations appear such as Kutrigur, Utigur, Onogur / (Onoghur), Sarigur, etc., which were collectively called "Huns","Bulgarian Huns", or "Bulgars". Similarly, the 6th century Slavs were presented as Hun groups by Procopius.


@ topic




The early Indian people had a creator god named Brahma.

The Chinese had Nü Kua, and some believed in Pangu.

The Aztecs also believed in a supreme creator of all: Ometeuctli

His failure to comprehend the connotation and usage of the word "society" in mine, and the implication thereof: is simply symptomatic of the glaring fact that the poor lil chap has no idea whatsoever what is being discussed.

voltron:
Hilter was worshiped, so was Pol pot and many other morally bankrupt icons

The bold rips your surmise to shreds, and renders your posts contradictory and even irrational.

On what basis can you state the bold? When you reflect on what grounds on which you could state the bold, you will find that you have disclosed the very opposite of that which you seek to advance here. That answers your posers and shows you to have failed to stop to think before posting.

Deep Sight:

His failure to comprehend the connotation and usage of the word "society" in mine, and the implication thereof: is simply symptomatic of the glaring fact that he poor lil chap has no idea whatsoever what is being discussed.

I still say you all need some sense knocked into you. Y'all just love to argue. Makes for some entertaining mom ents though.

texanomaly:

I still say you all need some sense knocked into you. Y'all just love argue

I do enjoy debate: but this is one discussion that does not derive from love of the play of the garb.

Here is a discussion in which a person declares that there is no evil in any atrocity in history: even that there is no such thing as atrocity: and goes so far as to insist that he will not punish or discipline his son for stealing: because morality is subjective.

I do not paraphrase him in the bold above: the gentleman said exactly so here on this thread - with all gravity, seriousness and sobriety.

All right thinking people should be deeply concerned at such declarations - these are the seeds that breed deeply misguided perverts into our collective future: at which time we will stand aghast, as with the case of a Muttallab, for example, and wonder - whence this madness?

You ought to be concerned. Very concerned. Every responsible adult should be concerned at such perversity.

Deep Sight:

I do enjoy debate: but this is one discussion that does not derive from love of the play of the garb.

Here is a discussion in which a person declares that there is no evil in any atrocity in history: even that there is no such thing as atrocity: and goes so far as to insist that he will not punish or discipline his son for stealing: because morality is subjective.

I do not paraphrase him: these are exactly his comments here on this thread.

All right thinking people should be deeply concerned at such declarations - these are the seeds that breed reprobate perverts into our collective future: at which time we will stand aghast, as with the case of a Muttallab, for example, and wonder - whence this madness?

You ought to be concerned. Very concerned. Every responsible adult should be concerned at such perversity.

Wow!
When you put it like that, I stand corrected, and a little ashamed.

Good point.

Deep Sight:

So fuc.king what? Sheesh.

Lemme check again, did you address this??

ME A-FUC.KING-GAIN:


Ok, so god being a member of another species has a different set of values. He decides we failed to achieve his objectives, and proceeds to flood the earth killing everyone save the most sheepish, slavish follower he could find. Genocide, at least of our species. Are you now saying that god's actions are objectively, universally good?

You do realize we humans do exactly the same thing, all the time, to other species?? And it is clearly unavoidable.

Nah...

I'll indulge though..

Deep Sight:

he will not punish or discipline his son for stealing: because morality is subjective.

Well, no, that's not exactly what I said. I said I wouldn't discipline, true, but if you were following you'd realize it would be more because I probably would value my kid's life more than that of whoever was abused. Not so hard to understand, no? You can now try to stop me and impose your will on me if you disagree, as that's certainly not an objectively 'good' position, no? And that is exactly what you're doing now with all these appeals to emotion. You're rallying the masses (one of your favorite past times, regardless of whatever you claim, it seems).

Now, they will likely agree with you, claim I would be wrong, just as I would if I were in their shoes. But make no mistake about it, they do so because it is in their best interest, not because they are following some magical code. And you do know just exactly how subjective best is, yes?

I mean for instance, take your stance on homosexuality

deep sight:
I think its simply unnatural.

Much as doing a squirell might be said to be unnatural.

It could also be physiological or psycological.

Sad, whichever way.

I doubt homosexuals (and many others, thankfully) consider this the 'best' view on the issue. And, what is that in your post about people being concerned? Oh holier than thou, the reason I took my time out to address your nonsense is because I remember you posting somewhere that you would fight against homosexuality. Now, do tell me how this your foo.lish opinion here is objective..... (Again, skip to the part where you tell us homosexuality is objectively evil and you begin trying to impose your 'objective' will on us. I hope you aren't hypocritical at least, and don't rain on the parade of religious bigots when they're doing their thing, whatever it might be.... oh, you do! You even exiled yourself over something similar....)

Anyways, it works both ways, this subjectivity thing. You can now spout nonsense like the quoted above, and I challenge you, see? Call you out as that nonsense is in no way objective, just as you do me and my kid. Like I have already mentioned, slavery was once 'objectively' condoned, yes? With time, we have been able to get rid of that nonsense, no objective morals needed. Just the will of the people. And the moral zeitgeist will always be changing, evolving. Just as species evolve

Like your poor understanding of evolution, claiming some species are 'better' than others (remember that?), you assume some codes are better than others. You are claiming cats are objectively better than dogs. Really? Again oh again, nonsense. Depending on the situation and objectives (read: values), one code might survive, better aid some objectives, another won't. In war people kill all the time, try doing that $hit during peacetime and see how effective it is in solving problems. The will of the people will stop my son from getting away with murder, but they'll gladly apply different standards to someone they value, eg granting immunity to diplomats and top government officials. It's then in their best interest to let them live, see? Etc etc... (In before malum in blah, it's a nonsense concept. Everyone has the right to be offended, doesn't make any deed intrinsically evil like I've already stated over and over overrrrrrr... People used to be disgusted when they saw black men dining with oyinbo at a table, I fail to see how that makes the act intrinsically evil)

And lastly, most humans tend to value a lot of stuff I would consider good, eg human rights and what not. This is what @voltron is trying to point out, you should have a little more faith in us. We generally tend to (at least in speak, even if not in deed) try improve the lot of ourselves the rest of nature, in a 'positive' sense. Let's just say we have 'good' intentions. Slavery, racism, wanton butchering etc, we're working on it. Some working very hard, gladly giving up their lives for people they will never even meet. I suppose we should just abandon that and just follow your 'natural' laws, which seem to exclude homosexuals.....

Let's not even get into how you assume the universe was built just for us, and you do. As I remember you justifying the size of this universe by stating if that's what was need (ie this GARGANTUAN universe) just to support us, then that was what was needed. Yes, this is all a grand stage, for humans and god to indulge in folly.... We can do as we please with all the other life, as we're special specialestesetest

The selfishness of the religious mind never ceases to dazzle.

Well, not more to add. Not enough time to shorten that,sorry. In before more whining and shenanigans. If you've nothing to add or address, we're done, no?

[s]
And you predicted correctly, I very likely would condemn my child (depends), I just said I won't to get my point across.[/s]

^^^Garbled nonsense, which you should be ashamed of.

And that last line (cancelled out) just shows terrible confusion and hypocrisy.

^^^
Yet you cannot show why? All you do is cry? How many pages now? You don't even answer any of my questions. Do you think you can mask that?...

Very free world, needless to say. But if I find your 'objective' morality repulsive and you expect me to indulge, I'll tell you the same I tell the muslims/xtians/allah/yahweh/vishna etc, kindly shove it up your a.rse. Like you were just doing to me now with my stance on the hypothesized murdering son of mine, see?

It works really simply

You mean to say morality is absolute? It does not evolve? Thinking is as it always has been?

Surmise your thoughts for me, at your convenience f'course.

Perhaps that was a poor example..

Deep Sight:

The bold rips your surmise to shreds, and renders your posts contradictory and even irrational.

On what basis can you state the bold? When you reflect on what grounds on which you could state the bold, you will find that you have disclosed the very opposite of that which you seek to advance here. That answers your posers and shows you to have failed to stop to think before posting.

voltron: You mean to say morality is absolute?

I mean to say it is not determined merely by reference to one's whims and caprices, which is what the atheists here declare.

It does not evolve? Thinking is as it always has been?

Now this is a very cardinal point: and I think once of the most critical clarifications that needs to be made on this thread: - - ->

Morality does not evolve: our attunement to what is moral is what evolves. In other words, we refine ourselves towards that which is moral: but that which is moral has always been there anyways.

In other words, to give an example: slavery is wrong.

It has always been wrong.

What has changed is that we have become gradually more refined to realize that it is wrong and has always been wrong.

To argue that morality itself evolves, would be to say that slavery was right at the time when practiced, but has become wrong nowadays. That is a wrong and ridiculous position.

I explained that here - - - >

Deep Sight:

That is not true: that something is widely practiced does not make it iherently right or good: as is the case with the killing of twins and Aztec human sacrifice. The truth is that in every age people of goodwill through the pin prick of conscience have spoken against common barbarities, as was the case with people like William Wilberforce in the campaign against slavery.

You actually fail to see the contradiction when you say that at some point slavery was inherently good, because if it was, then there would be no conscientuous campaign against it at all, which led to its abolition.

Slavery did not become inherently bad on account of its abolition, which is actually what your statement implies! The truth is rather that it was always inherently bad or wrong, and over time, societies attuned themselves to that truth which had always been there.

Anything else will be to say that something like slavery, or the torture of children, skips merrily from being inherently good to being inherently bad from time to time.

That, sir, is an inherently bad argument.

I hope the point is clear.

[size=20pt]AND I CANNOT SHOUT IT ENOUGH: IF EVOLUTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST HOLDS TRUE, THEN IT WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT TO EXTERMINATE, EXPLOIT AND ENSLAVE THE WEAKER AND INFERIOR ONES AMONG US FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF MANKIND, SO ONLY STRONGER AND SUPERIOR GENES WILL SURVIVE AND THEREBY MAKE HUMANITY STRONGER AND BETTER CONTINUOUSLY.

FACT: CAST IN IRON.

CIAO.[/size]

Deep Sight:

[size=20pt]AND I CANNOT SHOUT IT ENOUGH: IF EVOLUTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST HOLDS TRUE, THEN IT WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT TO EXTERMINATE, EXPLOIT AND ENSLAVE THE WEAKER AND INFERIOR ONES AMONG US FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF MANKIND, SO ONLY STRONGER AND SUPERIOR GENES WILL SURVIVE AND THEREBY MAKE HUMANITY STRONGER AND BETTER CONTINUOUSLY.

FACT: CAST IN IRON.

CIAO.[/size]

As usual, you rapidly commit the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that a certain process is natural doesn't make it moral. e.g the fact that peanuts are natural and eaten by people doesn't mean it is moral to feed it to people who are allergic to it. Shouting and throwing about mere assertions won't make you correct.

thehomer:

As usual, you rapidly commit the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that a certain process is natural doesn't make it moral. e.g the fact that peanuts are natural and eaten by people doesn't mean it is moral to feed it to people who are allergic to it. Shouting and throwing about mere assertions won't make you correct.

Are you so dim witted that it escapes you that that shout up there is not my position, but the implication of the position of strict moral evolutionists: those who contend that morality is the result of evolution only.

If morality is the result of evolution only, no one can EVER contend that it is wrong to exploit, enslave and exterminate the weak among us.

If anything, one would thereby be doing a great genetic and evolutionary service to mankind.

This is no joke: this was the point of view of people like Hitler and other extremist Nazis who were bent on creating a super-race. Eliminate the weak, the inferior, the less intelligent.

Besides i would adjure you to please read through a thread fully before commenting.

Been a while. I hope your robotic a.rse is doing fine.

Deep Sight:

Are you so dim witted that it escapes you that that shout up there is not my position, but the implication of the position of strict moral evolutionists: those who contend that morality is the result of evolution only.

Are you so stupid that you don't recognize your own strawman? Sorry if you had, you won't be making such a fallacious line of argument. You're welcome to show me who you think is a "strict moral evolutionist".

Deep Sight:
If morality is the result of evolution only, no one can EVER contend that it is wrong to exploit, enslave and exterminate the weak among us.

If anything, one would thereby be doing a great genetic and evolutionary service to mankind.

Then you're expressing an ignorance of both morality and the theory of evolution.

Deep Sight:
This is no joke: this was the point of view of people like Hitler and other extremist Nazis who were bent on creating a super-race. Eliminate the weak, the inferior, the less intelligent.

Are you arguing against people like Hitler or extremist Nazis?

Deep Sight:
Besides i would adjure you to please read through a thread fully before commenting.

I've read enough to see that you're deeply confused about morality and the theory of evolution. So confused that you present fallacious arguments.

Deep Sight:
Been a while. I hope your robotic a.rse is doing fine.

I'm well enough.

thehomer:

Are you so stupid that you don't recognize your own strawman? Sorry if you had, you won't be making such a fallacious line of argument. You're welcome to show me who you think is a "strict moral evolutionist".



Then you're expressing an ignorance of both morality and the theory of evolution.



Are you arguing against people like Hitler or extremist Nazis?



I've read enough to see that you're deeply confused about morality and the theory of evolution. So confused that you present fallacious arguments.



I'm well enough.

I see you are only ready to make unfounded statements and not ready to actually reason through anything or proffer an actual argument.

That is only to be expected, of course.