Insult by reference to Shakespeare.
Your contribution to this thread grows increasingly shrill. (Hence that remark by OC for ME). I think it's a safe bet that you have not convinced anybody of even one of your arguments in this particular instance.
My private messages beg to differ. Your wager is lost.
You are consistently and constantly trying to drive home that you have your own definition of morality and ethics, then cry "foul" when I state that it isn't in line with the academically reviewed and accepted definitions.
I am simply not presumptuous nor arrogant enough to make up my own definition then command others to abide by it.
You, however, are.
See my lack of response to your further (and utterly meritless) appeals to the authority of dictionaries and your fatherhood. You may enjoy repeating yourself, but I do not.
Your lack of response comes conveniently after I dissected your premise that morality is innate.
For clarity, you claim that your definition has merit, then when provided with experimental example, you ignore it and cry foul. All of my posts are concise and articulate.
While I accept that you have your own "differentiation" and that you are more than welcome to use it as you desire, I also have the comfort of proving how silly it is. Regardless of your deflection, this is what has happened here.
You have certainly not convinced me to adopt your moral relativism, and you won't do so by continuing to claim that "Stanford" agrees with you (whatever you imagine that means).
The link was provided. The definition I use, and the definition pretty much every academic source uses are essentially in-line. This is convenient because frankly I acquired my definition FROM academia.
Continue to persist in your delusion that morality is innate, or more specifically, that emotion is a form of morality. That a wincing child who is about to be struck is not invoking instinctual defense mechanisms but well thought out abstract thought about the situation.
If you can't defend your usage with reason, if you can't address the ramifications of it I pointed out, if all you can do is continue commit fallacies: you mustn't have a real argument. And yet you shrilly persist.
I have posted several thought exercises on the topic that you are too cowardly to address.
Let me know when you have the integrity necessary to discuss them.
Finally, your willful avoidance of the fact that your moral relativism is NOT a "scientific" or even universal view, your insistence on pretending that my eminently common usage is somehow purely my own invention, and that you possess sole "rectitude" (har har), not by the merits of your position, but by its accordance with what you imagine to be authorities on semantics, have severely decreased my respect for you as a poster.
Your "respect" for me is as much a consideration to myself as what brand of asswipe I will buy at Harris Teeter today.
Your definition is limited to you and you alone. That is the sad truth.
Time to grow some intestinal fortitude marshaul and prove me wrong, like you have failed to do so many times with your comprehensional failure. Give me an example of any source of academia using
your definition.
In the meantime I will patiently wait as you flop and flail about.
Here's some help pal.
Study "Nature vs. Nurture".
This discussion could have value if you would agree that your usage is not absolutely correct, and defend it on its merits (and I don't mean appealing to the authority of your fatherhood and sharing cute anecdotes).
This discussion has no value because you have repeatedly tried to correct me on definition, then backpedaled or altered your terms when confronted. An example is you telling me that I was using an inappropriate definition for "ethics" when mine was literally precisely by the textbook.
Then you alter your response to say that it is YOUR definition of ethics that I am not abiding by.
Shift those goalposts around until you feel you've won. I have not moved them once. My definition has not altered, nor has the very salient point that emotions and responses are not "morality". Provide a basis for your claims, or flop about in your fit of irritation as I don't allow you to include rainbows, unicorns, and popcorn popping, or anything else into your own definition of "Morality". Which by the way, you demand I acknowledge.
I mean, go ahead and create your own handy-dandy definition then demand those you debate with abide by YOUR definition. Using this approach, shifting that definition, you could never lose a debate.
Good for you buddy.
But your refusal to concede the lack of universality in defining "morality" renders this discussion of little value.
-I find your inability to comprehend simple dictionary definitions extremely prohibitive to any debate. You were incompetent, and incapable of answering questions I posed because you simply did not grasp them.
-Your demands that I accept whatever definition of "Morality" you want to cook up without first explaining why the commonly accepted academic definition is not adequate, is your failing. Totally and completely on you.
-Your inability to discuss the thought experiments I provided, nor expound upon them, is
your failing, and nobodies shortcoming but your own. YOU failed to engage in the debate, and instead persisted in creating strawmen, and shifting goalposts.
You continue to persist that I am being "High and mighty" by accepting definitions that were not created by me, not vetted by me, and only embraced because I have studied them and found to be not only sufficient, but exemplary in representing the concepts of morality and ethics.
Yet YOU demand I abide, for purposes of a debate, to your whimsical version of "morality".
Yes marshaul, please tell me how I have to abide by your definition without you so much as even attempting to point out why the normal definitions are insufficient. Then, as pompous and blowhard as your position is, project your deficiencies upon me.
Keep your little dialogue of shame up. It's pitiful, but I might just find morbid enjoyment in it.
