Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[loinburger]

I guess I would have been amazed if you had succeeded in grasping the point

[giblets]

This is contrary to the so-called 'universal' right to free speech. You've just proven exactly why 'human rights' activists aren't.

It's not just freedom of speech that can be denied because of 'human rights', but everything, including the right to life. Pretty much every single human rights activists believe in 'reproductive' rights trumping the right to life of the unborn.

All you have to do is establish a conflict either between a natural right and some made up 'human right', and away you go. You can rationalise any restriction of natural rights through 'human rights'.

That's descriptive relativism... the fact that there is disagreement on human rights doesn't mean that people who believe in human rights don't believe in universal morals. There are disagreements among religious people, and you can rationalize anything by saying a powerful wizard told you it was the right thing to do, but that doesn't make religious people relativist.

[Riesstiu IV]

Debating Ben has to be one of the worst ways to pass the time.

[N35t0r]

I tried hammering on my thumb once. The adrenaline rush feels great.

I'll pop some painkillers beforehand next time, I'm guessing it'll be even better.

[Ben Kenobi]

that there is disagreement on human rights doesn't mean that people who believe in human rights don't believe in universal morals.

It's not that there is disagreement, it's that you don't really believe in freedom of speech. What you believe in is freedom of speech for those who agree with me, or 'freedom of speech for socially beneficial causes'.

It's the same for all other 'human rights'. You believe in 'socially beneficial human rights', which in practice isn't any different than someone saying that they like the things that they do.

An objectivist on the other hand, would say that freedom of speech must be guaranteed for holocaust deniers. 'Truth and falsehood grapple, etc.

[giblets]

It's not that there is disagreement, it's that you don't really believe in freedom of speech. What you believe in is freedom of speech for those who agree with me, or 'freedom of speech for socially beneficial causes'.

Who is "you"???? I've never said holocaust denial should be illegal. And I don't see how "free speech that isn't socially harmful" couldn't be a right.

Of course, the real world is complicated so in practice you end up with a situation where someone has to choose between one value and another. In the case of holocaust denial, there's the right to free speech versus the right to freedom from religious persecution (holocaust denial, while not inherently anti-semitic, is linked to anti-semitism). Believing that one value outweighs another does not make someone a relativist.

It's the same for all other 'human rights'. You believe in 'socially beneficial human rights', which in practice isn't any different than someone saying that they like the things that they do.

???????

Someone who supports rights on the grounds that they are 'socially beneficial' is not a relativist if they think that things that social benefit has an objective definition and is intrinsically, objectively good.

And then there are people who think human rights are intrinsically, objectively good.

An objectivist on the other hand, would say that freedom of speech must be guaranteed for holocaust deniers. 'Truth and falsehood grapple, etc.

Believing holocaust denial is bad makes someone a relativist? Since when did believing in objective moral truths mean someone can't think something should be against the law?

[MrFun]

Most scholars believe that Troy is based on historical figures and events.

Myth is just history poorly recorded and lost to the passage of time.

There was a "historical," "real" Zeus that you know about? Enlighten us.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who is "you"???? I've never said holocaust denial should be illegal. And I don't see how "free speech that isn't socially harmful" couldn't be a right.

And that is why you aren't an objectivist. This is all I'm trying to show.

Of course, the real world is complicated so in practice you end up with a situation where someone has to choose between one value and another. In the case of holocaust denial, there's the right to free speech versus the right to freedom from religious persecution

There is no right to 'freedom from' anything. Freedom from hurt feelings? Freedom from thought too?

Believing that one value outweighs another does not make someone a relativist.

Believing that there is a right not to be offended makes you a bona fide relativist. Because you are elevating hurt feelings to the same position as expression.

Someone who supports rights on the grounds that they are 'socially beneficial' is not a relativist if they think that things that social benefit has an objective definition and is intrinsically, objectively good.

People differ on the concept of the Good to suit personal taste. If we only permitted, 'socially beneficial speech', this is essentially a censorship of offensive opinions. You've negated the very right to freedom of expression.

Believing holocaust denial is bad makes someone a relativist?

Believing that holocaust denial ought not to be permitted speech is the mark of a relativist. Whether it is considered 'good' or 'bad' is irrelevant.

Since when did believing in objective moral truths mean someone can't think something should be against the law?

It means the expression of 'offensive' ideas ought to be permitted if you believe in objective moral truths. Unless of course you believe freedom of speech isn't an objective moral good, which places you in a whole different realm of philosophy.

[Ben Kenobi]

There was a "historical," "real" Zeus that you know about? Enlighten us.

Loin's "point" is that there isn't a historical, real Jesus, because there's no difference from Jesus than Zeus.

But of course Mr. Fun knows this which is why he's arguing the point.

Why is the invocation of Zeus relevant to a discussion of the historicity of Homer's Odyssey?

As for the historicity of Zeus, a better question is the historicity of Herakles. I don't know about the historical Zeus. I do know about the historical Christ, which is why I'm a Christian.

I guess my point and question is how do I evaluate a source like Bede that uses people like Wodan as the progenitors of certain lines? Some solve it by saying, "this is real, this is myth". What if the Wodan we understand is an embellishment of a Wodan who actually lived?

[MOBIUS]

Debating Ben has to be one of the worsts ways to pass the time.

As I've said before: If you try to debate with him, you're proving that you're at least as stupid as he is...

Just ignore the nutter, but don't put him on ignore.

[David Floyd]

I do know about the historical Christ,

Sorry, but no you don't. You THINK, you STRONGLY SUSPECT, you BELIEVE, but you don't KNOW. I mean, were you there? Did you meet Jesus?

I mean, that's the argument you used for the Bible not being a work of fiction, right? Well, that argument works both ways, doesn't it?

[giblets]

And that is why you aren't an objectivist. This is all I'm trying to show.

There is no right to 'freedom from' anything. Freedom from hurt feelings? Freedom from thought too?

Believing that there is a right not to be offended makes you a bona fide relativist. Because you are elevating hurt feelings to the same position as expression.

Any right is going to be freedom from something... free speech is freedom from having your words suppressed. And you appear to not know what a relativist is. A relativist is someone who doesn't believe anything is objectively immoral. If some believes that it is objectively immoral to deny the holocaust, then they are not a relativist.

People differ on the concept of the Good to suit personal taste. If we only permitted, 'socially beneficial speech', this is essentially a censorship of offensive opinions. You've negated the very right to freedom of expression.

The fact that people have different opinions is descriptive relativism... when a specific individual believes that some things are objectively good for society, they are not a relativist.

Believing that holocaust denial ought not to be permitted speech is the mark of a relativist. Whether it is considered 'good' or 'bad' is irrelevant.

A relativist believes nothing is objectively wrong. If someone believes holocaust denial is objectively wrong they are not a relativist.

It means the expression of 'offensive' ideas ought to be permitted if you believe in objective moral truths. Unless of course you believe freedom of speech isn't an objective moral good, which places you in a whole different realm of philosophy.

Stop making up crap. If someone thinks some ideas are objectively evil, they are not a relativist, and consequently supporting some type of restriction on free speech does not make someone a relativist.

[David Floyd]

I do know about the historical Christ,

Sorry, but no you don't. You THINK, you STRONGLY SUSPECT, you BELIEVE, but you don't KNOW. I mean, were you there? Did you meet Jesus?

I mean, that's the argument you used for the Bible not being a work of fiction, right? Well, that argument works both ways, doesn't it?

[loinburger]

Debating Ben has to be one of the worsts ways to pass the time.

It's occasionally fun to watch. He'll make five contradictory arguments (sometimes in the same paragraph), and unless you can refute all five arguments simultaneously he wins. "These four stupid things you said are very stupid." "You failed to cover the fifth stupid thing I said, therefore it must be brilliant." "I am slain."

This thread is a classic example. He has no idea what ethics are, all he knows is that he wants a monopoly on them.

[BlackCat]

Religion is by nature offensive to non-believers, and it's by nature exclusive. Deal with it.

Problem is that even amongst god belivers, there are huge differences depening on wich god, baal, zeus, odin, quetzalcoatl, christ, mohammad etc. you belive in, so there isn't a true definition of a divine ethic either.