Comments by "Daily Wire Third Stringer" (@DailyWireThirdStringer) on "Fox News under fire in election-related probe" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billworden6642 What you have written is sheer gobbledegook. If you were paying attention to the news less than three years ago, you will recall the moment when Trump asked a member of his COVID-19 task force (Dr. Deborah Birx) if injecting disinfectant would be an effective treatment during a press briefing. Clearly you were not, or otherwise (if I'm being charitable), your memory must be faulty, to say the least. (Because surely this falsehood wasn't maliciously propogated with the intent to deceive. 🙄) That's okay -- the clip can easily be found on YouTube for your viewing pleasure.
Your fabrication concerning the Charlottesville protests doesn't fare any better. Again, if you were even passively following media coverage from reputable outlets, you might recall that the then-President asserted that there were "good people on both sides." Who were the both sides you may ask? Far-right white supremacists marching with tiki torches shouting anti-Semitic chants, and counter-protesters. Go ahead, tell me that the depiction of each side advocating for noble causes is accurate. I dare you. These two apparent attempts at gaslighting are so egregious on their own that, I contend, the remainder of your message has lost all credibility. And so, I fear, might have you; unless you have the integrity -- and, frankly, the sanity -- to admit your mistake.
1
-
1
-
@CommonCensorship Well then, I'm afraid that there is not much to debate, if your intended meaning is that morality is divorceable from religion. Indeed, this is a fundamental tenet of modern philosophy (specifically axiology, one of the three domains) in the wake of the Euthyphro dilemma and the collapse of Divine Command Theory (supported by, among others, Thomas Aquinas), first raised by the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. Two leading secular moral philosophies are deontology (e.g. Kantianism) and utilitarianism (Bentham/Mill/Singer), and it is to the latter that I look for guidance when navigating ethical concerns. I will freely debate the merits of each, or even another ethical theory (Aristotle's virtue ethics, for instance), if you wish.
EDIT: I apologize, Aquinas was not a divine command theorist, but proposed a similar philosophy known as "natural law theory." I own up to my mistake. Still, his argument appears to rely on the premise that God's commandments will produce the best results for humanity -- a highly dubious assumption. (It may rely on accepting the existence of a blissful afterlife, for which evidence in its turn must be provided.) Moreover, it is also susceptible to Scottish philosopher David Hume's is-ought distinction.
1
-
@CommonCensorship I don't know why your comment is getting flagged and (presumably) deleted. The YouTube filter can be quite capricious. Now, as to the statement "good is a human construct," I find that very intriguing. Certainly, if we wish to get into semantics we can confidently claim that the word "good" is a human construct, as is all of language. But it's the implications for objective morality that particularly interest me. If it is your contention that "good" is only defined by humans, then it must be deductively true that it is not defined by some cosmic force (such as God or karma). Furthermore, drawing out the implications leads us to conclude that "bad" must also be a human construct, as it is the logical counterpart to good (whether it is the presence of evil or merely the absence of good). But if "good" and "bad" are merely human constructs, then there can be no objective morality, including of the theistic kind. As a moral realist I disagree with this claim, but for those who hold the view that morality and religion are inseparable from one another, this conclusion is completely unacceptable. Is this still your position?
Edit: Apologies for the late reply, I succumbed to my biological necessity for rest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1