Hey Sklansky

First,I understand that this is your forum, and you can post whatever you want.

Getting past that though, you keep posting questions that have no objective answer. The only non-objective reasonable answer is to think correct whatever the majority of people think. I'm talking about the dog post, and the necro post,etc.And, I just don't like dogs and corpses,so there. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Shooby

[David Sklansky]

Not Ready has explained that all questions of this type are non objective if there is no God. (Unfortunately even if there is God, he is not yet a registered user on this site, so we can't be sure how he feels about one necrophilia to save 100 lives as I don't think the bible addresses that.)

What is objective however is that people's conclusions be consistent with there own reasons behind it. You can't say you voted for Clinton over Dole because you think the older someone is, the better president he will make. And when there are more steps of reasoning involved, many people do exactly that.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if there is a God, he is not yet a registered user on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is here already. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showprofile.php?Cat=&User=3&Board=books&what=ubbth reads&page=10&view=expanded&sb=6&o=14)

<font color="white"> .</font>

[snowden719]

honestly David, you should never talk about consistency because yet again you have given an example of someone having inconsistent beliefs which are not in fact inconsistnet. The following premises are consistent, it should be clear why they are, but I'll tell you later if you need it to be explained.

1) Whoever the oldest candidate is, he will be a better president
2) Dole is older than clinton is
3) I will vote for clinton

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
honestly David, you should never talk about consistency because yet again you have given an example of someone having inconsistent beliefs which are not in fact inconsistnet. The following premises are consistent, it should be clear why they are, but I'll tell you later if you need it to be explained.

1) Whoever the oldest candidate is, he will be a better president
2) Dole is older than clinton is
3) I will vote for clinton

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it's implied that he will vote for whoever he thinks will make the best president.

[snowden719]

then that should be one of his premises.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Not Ready has explained that all questions of this type are non objective if there is no God.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't completely accurate. I attack non-Biblical morality on the grounds that it is relative and therefore there is no possibility of establishing oughtness. The non-Biblical moral law may be objective but in the absence of God will always be relative. I may have spoken of subjectivity in some posts, but my intent is always to emphasize the fact that finite human rules can only be relative as distinguished from absolute.

Genuine moral obligation flows from the objective, absolute source, which is God. One summary of this obligation is "You shall be perfect because your heavenly Father is perfect". The requirement of God's law is very strict indeed.

[snowden719]

[/ QUOTE ]
The non-Biblical moral law may be objective but in the absence of God will always be relative.

[/ QUOTE ]




you are so sweet.

[David Sklansky]

honestly David, you should never talk about consistency because yet again you have given an example of someone having inconsistent beliefs which are not in fact inconsistnet. The following premises are consistent, it should be clear why they are, but I'll tell you later if you need it to be explained.

1) Whoever the oldest candidate is, he will be a better president
2) Dole is older than clinton is
3) I will vote for clinton

Your math SAT had to be between 720 and 750. No one else thinks this way.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]

Your math SAT had to be between 720 and 750. No one else thinks this way.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really curious to see if DS's read is right. Let us know.

[snowden719]

Math SAT score was 790 and Math 2c of the SAT II was scored 800, although I'm not sure why it is at all relevant.

[David Sklansky]

I was basically joking. But the basis for it was that those with lower SATs would never notice the need for the extra premise and those with higher ones are not sticklers for adding it. We need people like you though. I admit that. In fact our own Mason Malmuth has similar attributes. Its just that when you are talking to a disparate audience it is important to dumb down a bit to avoid eyes glazing over. I have several times suggested to Mason he remove a footnote or parenthetical remark for just that reason.