leejosepho wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
In other words, "Because they said so" which means there's no basis in objectivity and your argument is ret*d.
No, no, no! The objectivity was predetermined elsewhere ... and the remainder of that statement is getting awfully close to flaming.
The line is that thin? I thought attacking the argument was permitted and not the person? I didn't say 91 was ret*d. I don't think the dude is ret*d since ret*d would mean you lack a normal mental capacity. But time and time again he has shown gaping flaws in his arguments. Does that mean he's mentally incapable of understanding that? No, it has more to do with cognitive distortion than cognitive incapability.
You know what gets on my nerves? How quick people are to call someone "stupid" when it has more to do with short-sightedness, cognitive distortion, a dysfunctional way of thinking, willful ignorance, etc than it has to do with mental capacity. Even fundamental flaws in thinking have to do with stagnant development rather than incapability.
leejosepho wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
I don't need a book to tell me killing is wrong because empathy is inherent in social beings for the most part.
Sure, but so is "fight or flight" and any result that might follow. Therefore, at least some of us *do* need to be told, "Be angry, and sin not."
Well the difference is one is a biological mechanism, and the other is some arbitrary rule laid out by a book.