Muslims spreading christmas cheer

Lord Foul wrote:ah...well now then...moral judgements....... a slightly different kettle of fish methinks.....

who's morals

are there, in reality any absolute morals, and who gets to define them?

and, whats worse....how do you tell the difference between a "good" or a "bad" moral
(would that be, between immoral and immoral....I dont think so)

since whats good or bad depends entirely upon ones POV.(and that of ones "society" of course...which likely shapes the individulas POV)

which also leads me to ponder if an "amoral" individual would not be seen equally as bad by the two
extremes of "good morality and bad morality" (from whichever side you see it )

one's POV

Ziz wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

condemnation requires dislike of, as a very minimum, at what point does that morph imto hate? are there shades of "hate". can one mans dislike be anothers hate?

is it fair to condemn one who speaks of his dislike of something as one who hates?
clearly we cannot be bound by simplistic dictionary definitions, which are by their very nature bound within very limited horizons

Moral judgement does NOT require ego-centric emotions - where did you get that idea from?  

Ziz wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:ah...well now then...moral judgements....... a slightly different kettle of fish methinks.....

who's morals

are there, in reality any absolute morals, and who gets to define them?

and, whats worse....how do you tell the difference between a "good" or a "bad" moral
(would that be, between immoral and immoral....I dont think so)

since whats good or bad depends entirely upon ones POV.(and that of ones "society" of course...which likely shapes the individulas POV)

which also leads me to ponder if an "amoral" individual would not be seen equally as bad by the two
extremes of "good morality and bad morality" (from whichever side you see it )

one's POV

I get my morals  from myself in the final analysis, where else? And of course good and bad is dependent on one's view. I say, and have said, that haters are bad people - thankfully I don't share your dilemmas and doubts about them - and so I condemn them, there is no mystery here.

Ziz wrote:Sure...

examples:

One does not require the ego-centric emotion of hate to condemn.
One does not require the ego-centric emotion of love to care.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:Sure...

examples:

One does not require the ego-centric emotion of hate to condemn.
One does not require the ego-centric emotion of love to care.

That is not answering the question I asked...


You said...


'...Moral judgement does NOT require ego-centric emotions...'

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:

I get my morals  from myself in the final analysis, where else? And of course good and bad is dependent on one's view. I say, and have said, that haters are bad people - thankfully I don't share your dilemmas and doubts about them - and so I condemn them, there is no mystery here.

No mystery required...or sought..

however you have just made an absolute judgement ...that haters are bad people..

on what do you base that...are we talking about haters in general or a specific group?

if in general than I challenge your judgement ....what, I could easily ask, if the person has just cause to hate?

or if your argument is that an enlightened being never has just cause, being able to to be totally balanced, I would say that you ask too much of most of the world.
I dont claim to be one of the enlightened..certainly I am capable of horribly cold logic, even if at times to my own disbenefit....but by the same token I am quite capable of housing hatered of things.

does not the survivor of a murdered close relative have every right to hate...even unto death....the murderer

does your philosophy expect (and thus demand) that he should rather "forgive"

(objective psychology of course does suggest that perhaps forgiveing is BETTER for that person in the long run, since unrequited desire for revenge for instance is deffo very bad for a person and even if the sought for revenge is acheived, it is known that that too can result in no relief for the seeker. However that is a slightly different debate)

Ziz wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:

I get my morals  from myself in the final analysis, where else? And of course good and bad is dependent on one's view. I say, and have said, that haters are bad people - thankfully I don't share your dilemmas and doubts about them - and so I condemn them, there is no mystery here.

No mystery required...or sought..

however you have just made an absolute judgement ...that haters are bad people..

on what do you base that...are we talking about haters in general or a specific group?

if in general than I challenge your judgement ....what, I could easily ask, if the person has just cause to hate?

or if your argument is that an enlightened being never has just cause, being able to to be totally balanced, I would say that you ask too much of most of the world.
I dont claim to be one of the enlightened..certainly I am capable of horribly cold logic, even if at times to my own disbenefit....but by the same token I am quite capable of housing hatered of things.

does not the survivor of a murdered close relative have every right to hate...even unto death....the murderer

does your philosophy expect (and thus demand) that he should rather "forgive"

(objective psychology of course does suggest that perhaps forgiveing is BETTER for that person in the long run, since unrequited desire for revenge for instance is deffo very bad for a person and even if the sought for revenge is acheived, it is known that that too can result in no relief for the seeker. However that is a slightly different debate)

It'S a question of choice not rights. I choose to cultivate benevolence within myself - that is a choice that your victim or anyone else  can make too if they wish.

My philosophy demands nothing of others - they are free to choose hate if they wish, and I am free to condemn them for it - which I do.

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:
It'S a question of choice not rights. I choose to cultivate benevolence within myself - that is a choice that your victim or anyone else  can make too if they wish.

My philosophy demands nothing of others - they are free to choose hate if they wish, and I am free to condemn them for it - which I do.

Ok, that I can understand well enough......

But what of "just cause"  for certainly most, if not all things of this nature DO NOT exist soley in black and white. Even in the face of the known psychological effects, I would find it hard to condemn the person who sought burning revenge for a murdered loved one, even whilst trying to reason it out of him/her.

OH please see your first reply to Tommy above.....

Ziz wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


That is not answering the question I asked...


You said...


'...Moral judgement does NOT require ego-centric emotions...'

It does not - and I gave you examples.

Ziz wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:
It'S a question of choice not rights. I choose to cultivate benevolence within myself - that is a choice that your victim or anyone else  can make too if they wish.

My philosophy demands nothing of others - they are free to choose hate if they wish, and I am free to condemn them for it - which I do.

Ok, that I can understand well enough......

But what of "just cause"  for certainly most, if not all things of this nature DO NOT exist soley in black and white. Even in the face of the known psychological effects, I would find it hard to condemn the person who sought burning revenge for a murdered loved one, even whilst trying to reason it out of him/her.

OH please see your first reply to Tommy above.....

No-one said cultivating benevolence was easy.

And I've replied to Tommy to my satisfaction.

Sleep well.

Ziz wrote:Sure...

examples:

One does not require the ego-centric emotion of hate to condemn.
One does not require the ego-centric emotion of love to care.

with your consent ziz ...I am editing by adding this piece JUST TO REMIND ME to ask a question about your post above at a later date since its not germane to our debate at present

viz....are you suggesting the possibility that it is possible to live a fulfilled and satisfied life SOLEY on ones morals, discarding emotions ...rather like Spock?


If you object I will remove this immediately

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:

No-one said cultivating benevolence was easy.

And I've replied to Tommy to my satisfaction.

Sleep well.

I know...whetere its to HIS satisfaction is another thing of course but that wasnt my point...I have edited your post to include a reminder to myself (or I'll flaming forget doh!) to as you a question......if you object I'll remove it of course

Ziz wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:

No-one said cultivating benevolence was easy.

And I've replied to Tommy to my satisfaction.

Sleep well.

I know...whetere its to HIS satisfaction is another thing of course but that wasnt my point...I have edited your post to include a reminder to myself (or I'll flaming forget doh!) to as you a question......if you object I'll remove it of course

His satisfaction is not within my gift  - and I've now seen your edit and quickly responded to it.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:

It does not - and I gave you examples.

Not really... to 'condemn' or 'care' are not themselves 'moral judgements', but rather resulting from 'moral judgements'...

Also... I wouldn't say 'love' or 'hate' are 'ego-centric emotions' either... unless motivated by some 'moral judgement' of some sort...


So... can you be a little clearer in explaining what you meant...?


Thanks...

Ziz wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Not really... to 'condemn' or 'care' are not themselves 'moral judgements', but rather resulting from 'moral judgements'...

Also... I wouldn't say 'love' or 'hate' are 'ego-centric emotions' either... unless motivated by some 'moral judgement' of some sort...


So... can you be a little clearer in explaining what you meant...?


Thanks...

I used the term "ego-centric" to imply the presence of the "I" in the process but we can omit it if you wish and simply go with - moral judgement does not require emotions.

Yes, condemnation and love can be said to be processes or actions which arise from moral judgements but it alters nothing since emotion is not a prerequisite of reaching such judgements. For example, I can condemn murder without experiencing hate or love - simply on the basis of my belief that to take something which one cannot replace is wrong.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:

I used the term "ego-centric" to imply the presence of the "I" in the process but we can omit it if you wish and simply go with - moral judgement does not require emotions.

Yes, condemnation and love can be said to be processes or actions which arise from moral judgements but it alters nothing since emotion is not a prerequisite of reaching such judgements. For example, I can condemn murder without experiencing hate or love - simply on the basis of my belief that to take something which one cannot replace is wrong.

OK... then other peoples moral judgements about issues can be made without hate too... so you are wrong to call anyone 'haters' and then condemn them, for just having made a judgement or taken a view that you don't like.

Tommy Monk wrote:

You try to mis-label any valid opinion that you don't like as 'hatred' or 'promoting division or intolerance'... just so you can justify the condemning in your own mind.

Tommy Monk wrote:You mis-label anyone who is against mass immigration or the eu as a racist... then you can justify your condemning of them in your twisted mind...

Tommy Monk wrote:I hold the view that immigration needs to be tightly controlled, numbers drastically reduced, end to eu free movement, with immigration applicants being stringently vetted...

Tommy Monk wrote:

So what...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not 'confessing' anything... just stating valid opinion/views...


I'm glad you are happy for me to hold and express these opinions/views without feeling the need to try to shout me down as a 'racist' or a 'hater'..  as is usually the case here from so many others...


Well done!

Tommy Monk wrote:You support mass immigration that promotes all those things...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Mass immigration creates division, intolerance and hatred.

Tommy Monk wrote:The issue as well as the influx of foreigners have caused division, intolerance and hatred.

Tommy Monk wrote:Mass immigration has divided communities and opinion...

Handy Andy wrote:As an empire, Britain invaded scores of countries, imposing it's will and laws on those who not only didn't necessarily want us there, but saw our settlers as immigrants.
Tom, do you regard those settlers in the same vein as those that seek to settle here?

And how sad for so many of those natives to have been wrenched from their homeland - shipped back to England - treated as a novelty/circus freak show - slave to the hiearchy family - and that was 'SUPPOSEDLY' a Christian thing to do for those heathens