>I'm trying to draw your attention to the logical outworking of
>your worldview. Now that you're probably coming close to
>seeing it, you're backing off. That's playing a game.

My opinion of your worldview has not changed an iota!

>
>The question you asked about homosexuality isn't important
>yet. What we're talking about here is logically prior to
>that.
>
>If you can't respond to #162, say so, but don't play the
>"let's just agree to disagree" game.
>
>Although, I guess in your logically self-contradictory
>worldview, that seems like the only way out.
>
>It's funny that by denying objective truth, you've undermined
>your very act of debating/discoursing... yet you continue to.


Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be appealing to an objective truth? If there is a 'universal truth' it simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. Where then does it come from, and how can we begin understand it? (Bear in mind our 'subject, verb, object' language).

I will address #162. I couldn't continue last night because my girlfriend was hassling me to get off the computer! This damn thing is taking over my bloody life!


>>Absolutely, but it doesn't make them any less valuable.


>It most definitely does. Cause according to you, it is only your >opinion that they're valuable, an opinion which is no more right >than the opposing opinion, according to you.

>There is no intrinsic value in your worldview. It would be >philosophically unacceptable for there to be. There is only >subjective projected value, and if that's ALL that there is, then >they're (your values) meaningless to anybody but you.

>So, when you say "that person SHOULDN'T have kidnapped my son", >you're making a meaningless statement. This is unavoidable, it >can't be argued around.



It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of other HUMANS. Call it emotional but when an individual is kidnapped, people come together in order to help, as does the institution. So it is meaningful.



>>Now I'll give you an instantiation: "Raping babies is
>>wrong".
>>
>>I say that is a fact.
>>
>>You say that is just an opinion.
>>
>>


>Firstly, you used a (perhaps undeliberate) rhetorical trick
>here. I didn't say 'just' an opinion.


>It doesn't matter! In your world OPINIONS are ALL THAT THERE IS. >Therefore an opinon is utterly USELESS in debating or reasoning >with ANYONE. There is NO point of reference in your worldview.>


But it builds our very institutions. We don't need a religious point of reference or arrogant appeal to 'objective truth' for that.




>Secondly, how is what you wrote a fact?


>So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?

>Is it merely an opinion that you hold? Tell me then, what makes it >more correct than the holder of the opposite opinion? Why do you >deny that he should have the right to act on his opinions?

>Under your view here, you'd be an utter hypocrite to chastise >someone for raping a baby.

>All I'm doin' here is exposing the logical consequence of your >worldview.


But as a defence lawyer you would be laughed out of court! The legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough shit! Majority view wins the day (or parliament view; but that's a different argument).

BTW, notions may seem to be 'facts' when they have huge uniformity of subjectivity in their favour.




>However, my subjective view (my dogma) and the view of
>millions others that it is wrong. So it is illegal. If anybody
>has a problem with it, then tough shit!!


>And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might makes >right. If enough people decide that black people are 3/5 human and >should be herded and worked like animals... then it IS SO.

>All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of your >worldview.


Unfortunately yes, but that's when you either subscribe to it or become an activist (slavery, that is)...


Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery.

Explain that one to me. Then answer the homosexuality question. I am logically ready!