It’s unfortunate that you believe you must characterize my desire to know the answer to this question as ‘baiting’; Especially if you are a prime candidate to answer it well.
I give you my word that should you be persuaded to change your mind, I will give deference to you so that you do not perceive me to be antagonizing you or your viewpoint and, perhaps, that of AE in general. I am truly only trying to understand why a person, such as myself, who holds to Biblical theism and thus, a Biblical worldview, properly understood, may have difficulty “synthesizing” or “harmonizing” this with AE.
If you still choose not to, I will respect your ability to make this choice.
Start a new thread maybe, start a conversation (private message me), or continue in this current thread. It’s up to you. I think it would be first proper to explain what it is that isn’t “harmonizing” between biblical theism and AE according to you since you brought it up.
Yes, I apologize to the participants here. I have traveled the world but I am NOT tech savvy and have a difficult time with certain aspects of ‘the web’. LOL!
I think it would come down to a choice of one group of values versus another. The label of good and bad is kinda abusive. If you believe Aristotle then the virtues tend to reinforce each other, so that the more honesty you have the more compassion you have and so on. If that is true then we can at least classify values into distinct groups. Then let people choose.
Oh I don’t think he gets to decide because of who he is. I just mean he observed an interesting fact that certain values/virtues seem compatible. And so at the very least we can classify them as groups of compatible values, then let people choose the camp they fit in.
I’m just joking about Aristotle. The point is that the virtues themselves are still classified as “moral” or “good” them being compatible with other “virtues” still begs-the-question. Also, I’m also not convinced that many of the said “virtues” aren’t equally compatible with other “vices”
Sorry there isn’t usually much humor here You are correct using “moral” or “good” as a justification is cheating. I think its a good area to study, logically compatible virtues and incompatible vices.
I don’t know why anybody needs to argue about this here. Lilburne discussed this earlier in the thread so I thought it was already understood. VirtueScience.com as a source validates that cowardice is a vice, and to impose words on other people as having such a vice has been demonstrated in real-time as worthy to have physical repercussions imposed for saying such a word to another, out of self-defense of course for the end action is ‘get off my property’. Imposing ones opinion upon another, especially in an uncivil manner, is considered either an initation of physical aggression or it also has to be taken into account that when in somebody elses house they can make you leave without any dialogue for merely sneezing. The visitor has no right to question the act of removal for it is basic property rights understood via the principle of original appropriation.
It is me, not you. I learned that an emotional rant like I displayed may be amusing, but it is not convincing. I concede it is better to appeal to reason and attempt to use logic in my posts. I am extremely weak, to say the least, in philosophy and logic. I have no training / background in logical argumentation, which is the style for most discussions here. Therefore, when I am provoked, the emotion flows and so do the words.
I admit your replies do set me off (I’m not angry here). I see what “limited government” has done to our economy, which I believe has been irreparably damaged. The next step is for an even more powerful state to emerge. When you defend and support “limited government”, yes, it sets me off. Again, that is not your issue, its mine to deal with. I do not have contempt for you; you do an admirable job in defending your position. You are wrong about the benefit of limited government, but you are far better at defending your position than I am at refuting it.
Just admitting as much as this puts you miles ahead of most people in the internet market of ideas. With personal growth like you and filc have evinced in your approach to discourse and Bloom has evinced in his approach to scholarship, this forum can truly become an oasis of reason in a desert of ideological witch-hunts.
I don’t think you know how understated that is. Just today, the Washington Post reports that the “limited government” injected another $3.8 billion of taxpayer money into the zombie bank called “GMAC”. (Or, more precisely, the “limited government” borrowed money from China that taxpayers will later default on, prompting the Fed to print more money, etc. It’s called monetary and fiscal “policy”.) GMAC just reported a $5 billion loss for the 4th quarter (I’m still under control, though). Total "limited government: boondoggle: $16 billion thrown down the GMAC rat hole. Here’s the article to help you keep tabs on the “limited government”. Enjoy. [:D]
I’ll save future replies like this for your other thread, but it does address the “limited government” aspect you are defending, which is why I posted it.
I think what chloe might be trying to tell you is, “if you give a mouse a crumb, he’ll take the whole cookie”. In other words, you may have a certain ideal limited government. But your ideally limited government, once created, may have its own ideas about how limited it should be, and will work to turn its ideas into reality.
You are correct using “moral” or “good” as a justification is cheating. I think its a good area to study, logically compatible virtues and incompatible vices.