Hamas Launches Offensive Against Southern Israel

[Abhorsen]

So to your last thing I only need 1 A god exists. 2 That it's mine would be nice but not neccesary, again if Islam is true then Allah and his prophets would be morally good. Our debate is not that deep. As for 3 God has moral authority for the same reason he has physical authority. The bolded section above explains God has sysadmin access and thus he can create and manipulate the physical and moral laws of the universe. As long as he is truly omnipotent of course.

I don't think you can get to 3, especially if you don't assume 2.

If you don't assume 2, it could be a complete deist god, who just created the universe then fucked off and stopped giving a shit, one who has no opinion on morality at all. Or maybe he's just an asshole, like the greek gods.

Even if we give 2, then again, you assume by writing the rules of the physical universe, he can write the rules of morality. But these are not connected. Sure, maybe he's a programmer who has his own score card for each person that he calls morality. But that just, like, his opinion, man. Why should we pay attention to what the programmer thought was the purpose of creating the world? And you say 'but he's god, and he can set the rules', but I'll counter with 'Why should we obey those rules instead of ones we make up?'

Basically, you've leveled up your god from someone who is omniscient & omnipotent to one who also defines concepts or even can do illogical things (like create a rock he can't lift, etc). That's an added assumption on the power of God. You could treat that as part of 1, but I think that's a pretty big ask.

Note that the number of assumptions (once you hit a non-zero number) isn't really a big deal, tbh, unless it gets absurd or they contradict each other. Like the basics of mathematics uses 8 + 1 optional one.

I said above that God solves the Is Ought dillema. Like above if God exists he can make moral laws as "real" as physical laws for example without God "It is true that apples will fall if you drop it." "We ought to not steal from others" With God "It is true that apples will fall if you drop it." "It is wrong to steal from others"

Without God you have to directly assume a moral truth, with God you just have to assume a God exists. But moral truths are not assumed.

They are indirectly assumed, when you assume God exists. That's what I'm saying. Just because you made your assumption further back doesn't negate my assumption.

Then they are ancaps, not libertarians, random starving foreigners on the streets are not good for business (ask Paris, San Francisco or others if in doubt, they did that experiment for us) and so have to be dealt with one way or another.

I would say that an Ancap is a subset of libertarianism. So yeah, that would be a libertarian response. Though note it's also only a subset of Ancaps who would say that, as Ancaps think that all land should be privately held, and immigration could be argued to be trespassing (there's a lot more than this, and it's a long, complicated argument that TBH, I'm not sure I back, but I also don't know it well. I'm just noting it's an argument some make.) Basically, there are small gov libertarians and Ancaps on both sides of immigration, as well as establishment libertarians (think CATO and Reason) who are generally for immigration.

Personally, as it comes to Palestinians, I want the Justin Amash Palestinians, the ones that love freedom, and I don't want any other ones. No idea how to filter for that though.

 

[King Arts]

Newsflash, not a single group in the world takes their ideology to "its logical conclusion". Not Muslims, whether moderate or Hamas/ISIS/Taliban. Not Jews. Not Communists or extreme leftists. Sure as fuck not Christians. Since we live in the real world and not in some abstraction inside the tiny head of one King Arts, I fail to see the relevance of this whole "logical conclusion" digression.

What about traditional Muslims, and what about Orthodox Jews. What do you mean they don't take it to the logical conclusion?

Also Christians do try and take it to the logical conclusion it's just that our standards are so high that a human can't reach it so we acknowledge that humans are sinners and can't reach it(we still must try) but God can reach that perfect standard for us.

 

[Bacle]

"Russia will pay the price for supporting Hamas. When this war (with Hamas) is done, we (Israel) will make sure Ukraine wins against Russia because Russia supports Hamas and genocide of Israeli's. Russia will pay." Amir Weitmann, powerful member of Netanyahu's Likud party.

Russia done fucked up even worse than '3 days to Kyiv' by supporting Hamas's actions.

 

[DarthOne]

Disgusting.

 

[Abhorsen]

I'll move the debate on what morality is to a new thread, sorry about the derail. I've left a fair bit of it, because I'm pretty sure some of it was still related to Hamas stuff, and I've erred that way.
New thread here:

Philosophy - Morality debate split from Hamas thread

I don't think you can get to 3, especially if you don't assume 2. If you don't assume 2, it could be a complete deist god, who just created the universe then fucked off and stopped giving a shit, one who has no opinion on morality at all. Or maybe he's just an asshole, like the greek gods...

the-sietch.com

 

[Free-Stater 101]

In fairness, one hundred million dollars is not even a droplet of piss as far as the United States is concerned.

It's misreported.
MSN
It's 100 Billion not Million, but in any case I don't get what all the complaining about is over giving it the country will continue to slide further into debt regardless we are already 1 trillion in debt what is another?

There is no real reason to complain better a cause like this than being siphoned to any number of democrat pet projects.

 

[Abhorsen]

It's misreported.
MSN
It's 100 Billion not Million, but in any case I don't get what all the complaining about is over giving it the country will continue to slide further into debt regardless we are already 1 trillion in debt what is another?

There is no real reason to complain better a cause like this than being siphoned to any number of democrat pet projects.

No, it's 100Million with an M that goes straight to the Palestinians.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

No, it's 100Million with an M that goes straight to the Palestinians.

but between Ukraine and Israel old Joe is asking Congress $100 billion

 

[mrttao]

but in any case I don't get what all the complaining about is over giving it the country will continue to slide further into debt regardless we are already 1 trillion in debt what is another?

advocating giving up because we are in trouble is a very defeatist attitude
fight back for every cent.

 

[Abhorsen]

but between Ukraine and Israel old Joe is asking Congress $100 billion

That wasn't what was being referred to in the original quote.

Also 100B is not nothing. That's an appreciable part of the debt.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

advocating giving up because we are in trouble is a very defeatist attitude
fight back for every cent.

Depends on what cause you think I support.

No, it's 100Million with an M that goes straight to the Palestinians.

In that case not a single cent in the case of the Ukraine or Israel conflict it's well spent.

 

[mrttao]

Depends on what cause you think I support.

I support the "take your hands out of my fucking wallet" cause.
I said every cent. I meant it.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Not really if you think about it for more than two seconds.

Yes, if we're talking about blame. Do you really think that if someone, or a group, "incidentally" say, killed your family as a part of some other plan they had, they wouldn't have any responsibility?

The opposite can't be true. But since 1 can be true without 2, it still had to be broken up into 2 parts. That's why 1 comes before 2 in my list and not the other way around.

If you cant have two without one, there is no reason to list one at all.



It's just a very strange way to talk about something.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

advocating giving up because we are in trouble is a very defeatist attitude

Or just a practical one.

 

[Bacle]

Israel is recalling diplomats and citizens from Turkey; that's definitely not a good sign.

 

[Captain X]

pedantic point: Murder is defined as unlawful killing. An act being promoted, ignored, or prohibited by local legal structures is entirely unrelated to whether or not that act meets any given moral standard.

IE: Whether or not killing someone is moral or immoral is unrelated to whether it is legal or illegal, however much local judicial organizations may attempt to conflate the two criteria.

Killing someone because they are different from you is immoral, and so is any belief system that claims otherwise.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Killing someone because they are different from you is immoral, and so is any belief system that claims otherwise.

I can agree on that as well and I don't like most of your takes in other subjects or instances.

 

[GoldRanger]

Yes, if we're talking about blame. Do you really think that if someone, or a group, "incidentally" say, killed your family as a part of some other plan they had, they wouldn't have any responsibility?

They'll have a responsibility, but we wouldn't call that a murder, we'd call that manslaughter and it will carry a lesser sentence.

If you cant have two without one, there is no reason to list one at all.

We literally JUST established that we CAN in fact have 1 without the other (but it goes in just one direction). Are you brain damaged or something?

 

[GoldRanger]

What about traditional Muslims, and what about Orthodox Jews. What do you mean they don't take it to the logical conclusion?

Both groups don't follow a crapload of the stuff they're supposedly obligated to do.

Also Christians do try and take it to the logical conclusion it's just that our standards are so high that a human can't reach it so we acknowledge that humans are sinners and can't reach it(we still must try) but God can reach that perfect standard for us.

So you DON'T reach the logical conclusion. Thank you for confirming this.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

They'll have a responsibility, but we wouldn't call that a murder, we'd call that manslaughter and it will carry a lesser sentence.

What would you call third degree genocide? Just as an aside to the conversation I mean.

We literally JUST established that we CAN in fact have 1 without the other (but it goes in just one direction).

Yes but if it only goes in that direction, you didn't need to list condition 1 at all.
If condition 1 does not on it's own constitute genocide, but condition 2 (out of a total of two) requires condition 1, logically you didn't have to even bother listing condition 1.

Are you brain damaged or something?

Jesus Christ what is your problem calm down.