Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

DeadSeraph

Gryphon66
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Or, we could just dump a big barrel of red herring on the conversation all call it a day, eh?

I don't think that's going to work.

How is that a red herring? The OP specifically addresses the issue of "morality". Straw man much?

(two can play that game)

Yes, we can, except that you're not playing very well. Point out the OP's argument that I have repeated in such a way as to diminish the original and argue more effectively against the weakened argument. Can't do it? Yeah, that strawman just fell off the pole didn't it?

Your argument that I replied to is the red herring. Tossing moral relativism in to the specific response is not only non-topical but doesn't follow from the previous argument. Then, when you're called on it, you try to toss it all the way back to the OP.

LOL, it doesn't work that way.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I stated moral relativism as being what I believed to be the goal in relation to the OP in my very first post in this thread. That was relevant to the OP and it still is. I also suggested we define morality if we are to reach past the current impasse in regards to the OP. That is not a red herring, no matter how much you want to argue it.

DeadSeraph

Gryphon66
I suppose that we can't see the original installation of those "values" at the head of the Christian spear or from centuries of the Christian pulpit as any kind of social manipulation then? Ha!

Why? Because they were telling "the truth" according to the OP's lights?

I think the inherent bias of the question becomes more and more clear. OP is right, everyone else is merely parroting.

*Wrrock* < ---- Parroting noise.

edit on 2Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:45:17 -060014p022014266 by Gryphon66 because: Arrr, matey.

Parroting nonsense indeed. OP is muslim, btw.

He or she may be, but the OP is asking about Christian values that have been compromised and degenerated, no?

sk0rpi0n
I'm not American, but from what I've gathered, the US was once a rather religious and conservative society...in which the Christian religion played a major role in society without even holding absolute political power. ''Christian values'' seemed to have prevailed not just in Christian homes, but even in media and society overall.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

reply to post by Gryphon66


You assumed the OP was Christian. Don't pass your ignorance off on me.

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

You assumed the OP was Christian. Don't pass your ignorance off on me.

LOL, I'm not. Demonstrate exactly where I said the OP was a Christian.

The OP is referring to the US as a Christian nation.

Get the board out of your own eye before you try for the non-existent dust speck in mine. Didn't your guy say that once?

Yeah.

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

I stated moral relativism as being what I believed to be the goal in relation to the OP in my very first post in this thread. That was relevant to the OP and it still is. I also suggested we define morality if we are to reach past the current impasse in regards to the OP. That is not a red herring, no matter how much you want to argue it.

edit on 12-2-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

Beg to differ. You were not referencing and did not reference OP in your post. You were responding directly to Lucid Lunacy. Go back and read your own response for goodness sake! It's obvious. You're tossing in an ancillary question about rape to try to beg the question posed by Lucid Lunacy's post, not the OP.

That's the very definition of Red Herring. Would you like a link to logical fallacies?

Gryphon66

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

You assumed the OP was Christian. Don't pass your ignorance off on me.

LOL, I'm not. Demonstrate exactly where I said the OP was a Christian.

The OP is referring to the US as a Christian nation.

Get the board out of your own eye before you try for the non-existent dust speck in mine. Didn't your guy say that once?

Yeah.

I suppose that we can't see the original installation of those "values" at the head of the Christian spear or from centuries of the Christian pulpit as any kind of social manipulation then? Ha!

Why? Because they were telling "the truth" according to the OP's lights?

According to the OP's lights? Telling truth? As long as we're discarding absolutes here, it would certainly seem you implied he was christian.

Gryphon66

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

I stated moral relativism as being what I believed to be the goal in relation to the OP in my very first post in this thread. That was relevant to the OP and it still is. I also suggested we define morality if we are to reach past the current impasse in regards to the OP. That is not a red herring, no matter how much you want to argue it.

edit on 12-2-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

Beg to differ. You were not referencing and did not reference OP in your post. You were responding directly to Lucid Lunacy. Go back and read your own response for goodness sake! It's obvious. You're tossing in an ancillary question about rape to try to beg the question posed by Lucid Lunacy's post, not the OP.

That's the very definition of Red Herring. Would you like a link to logical fallacies?

Yes, I was responding to Lucid Lunacy and I was enjoying the conversation before you showed up.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Are you seriously putting it on the reader for not knowing the OP wasn't a Christian when the OP was ripe with Christianity?!?

I'm not American, but from what I've gathered, the US was once a rather religious and conservative society...in which the Christian religion played a major role in society without even holding absolute political power. ''Christian values'' seemed to have prevailed not just in Christian homes, but even in media and society overall.

To quote just a part of it.

Lol.

If the reader misunderstood it was a fault of the OP. Goodness.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Oh, so now you're going to try to weasel to implication? You were so certain I called OP a Christian a moment ago, but when you actually read what I wrote you found out that was your only your interpretation?

Kinda takes the bite out of that sarcasm you were going for, don't it?

Look, it doesn't matter whether Skorp is Muslim, Baha'i or Wiccan. He (or she) is asserting in the OP that certain truths were once valued in the US and they aren't now. The particular "brand name" on those truths doesn't matter. It happens that he was categorizing those as Christian values.

Thus my point.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Are you seriously putting it on the reader for not knowing the OP wasn't a Christian when the OP was ripe with Christianity?!?

I'm not American, but from what I've gathered, the US was once a rather religious and conservative society...in which the Christian religion played a major role in society without even holding absolute political power. ''Christian values'' seemed to have prevailed not just in Christian homes, but even in media and society overall.

To quote just a part of it.

Lol.

If the reader misunderstood it was a fault of the OP. Goodness.

Why would you make the assumption? The OP asked a perfectly objective question. A question which has now been convoluted with accusations of "red herring" arguments, and now devalued with ad hominem attacks. Why is it necessary to descend into a pit fight of pseudo debate simply because I pointed out two main truths?

1) To say that it is a fact that most atheists were formerly religious is unquantifiable and thus not factual

2) In order to properly discuss the OP we should define if morality is relativistic or absolute

If you can't handle a discussion without keeping the original post in view, then feel free to move on to one which appeals to you more.

Gryphon66
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Oh, so now you're going to try to weasel to implication? You were so certain I called OP a Christian a moment ago, but when you actually read what I wrote you found out that was your only your interpretation?

Kinda takes the bite out of that sarcasm you were going for, don't it?

Look, it doesn't matter whether Skorp is Muslim, Baha'i or Wiccan. He is asserting in the OP that certain truths were once valued in the US and they aren't now. The particular "brand name" on those truths doesn't matter. It happens that he was categorizing those as Christian values.

Thus my point.

Ad hominem. We can do this all night.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Where is any ad hominem exactly? Do you just have a list of common logical fallacies and randomly try to cite others with them when you feel like things aren't going your way? I'm asking a literal question here.

Show were any argument I have made depends for its validity on referring to some specific detail about you the person, not your posts, but about you.

Your POST has a sarcastic tone. I don't have any way to know if you are a sarcastic person in real life. My argument doesn't rise or fall on your tone being sarcastic. See how that works?

Find that and then you'll have some "ad hom" ... and actually, we can't do this all night, because it's already boring me to death.

Have fun all.

@ Lucid Lunacy...are you seriously putting it on the reader for not knowing the OP wasn't a Christian when the OP was ripe with Christianity?!?

Regardless of my religion and nationality, I pointed out to the replacement of values and religion in the US, in order to highlight a certain point.... That some mysterious entity within the US is using the media to program and manipulate people into accepting things that were shunned only 50 years ago. That is a fact. People claim those changes emerged out of ''social evolution'' or their own ''enlightenment'' or some other colorful term, but the question is, does it necessarily have to lead to a reversal of values (as in marraige and family)? Regardless of religion, societies the world over have maintained similar to identical standards when it comes to family values. In the case of the US, those standards faded away to be replaced by the exact opposite of what once prevailed. Atheism, open homosexuality, profanity, whorishness are accepted as ''normal'' in both the real world AND the media which is a glamorized reflection of the real world. ________________________________________You have shows and movies unmarried people, even teenagers sleeping around because thats whats being accepted as ''normal'' in the real world...because thats depicted as ''normal'' in entertainment land.

sk0rpi0n

@ Lucid Lunacy...are you seriously putting it on the reader for not knowing the OP wasn't a Christian when the OP was ripe with Christianity?!?

Regardless of my religion and nationality, I pointed out to the replacement of values and religion in the US, in order to highlight a certain point.... That some mysterious entity within the US is using the media to program and manipulate people into accepting things that were shunned only 50 years ago. That is a fact. People claim those changes emerged out of ''social evolution'' or their own ''enlightenment'' or some other colorful term, but the question is, does it necessarily have to lead to a reversal of values (as in marraige and family)? Regardless of religion, societies the world over have maintained similar to identical standards when it comes to family values. In the case of the US, those standards faded away to be replaced by the exact opposite of what once prevailed. Atheism, open homosexuality, profanity, whorishness are accepted as ''normal'' in both the real world AND the media which is a glamorized reflection of the real world. ________________________________________You have shows and movies unmarried people, even teenagers sleeping around because thats whats being accepted as ''normal'' in the real world...because thats depicted as ''normal'' in entertainment land.

And my only statement, Skorpion, was that you had categorized these "values" or "truths" in your OP as Christian. Another member tried unsuccessfully to cite me for error in calling you, yourself, a Christian when I did not.

I suggested that even if there is a unified "mysterious force" that has designed and implemented the changes that you obviously don't favor in American society ... that those same values were originally installed in the People by Christian coercion and manipulation through centuries of conversion by the sword (or spear point) and then repetition and reinforcement from the pulpits ... that was my only point there.

And with that, g'night all.

Really good discussion so far.

I think another thing that should be addressed is whether or not the questions being asked are misleading from the start. I believe Gryphon touched on this a bit earlier as did a couple others. For example:

If the collapse of religion and age-old traditional values did not occur by accident, then it would have had to have been achieved by mysterious forces working behind the scenes to program the masses into accepting strange new ideas. If so, then who or what is it? And what do they stand to gain from rewriting social norms and diminishing religion?

Are the two possible choices given here really the only two possible answers??? Accident or Hidden Manipulation. Also, why isn't the Old Traditional Conservative Religious System considered to be Manipulation???

Couldn't the changes be attributed also to the increase of information, as others have said which I totally agree with, added with the ability for any and all ideas to be expressed regardless of how small of a group those ideas represent???

Perhaps what we are witnessing is the Breakdown of the Old Manipulation because of the multitude of new ideas being put forward. Each one of these ideas representing it's own form of Manipulative Agenda, hidden or not???

Just something to consider...

Gryphon66
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Oh, so now you're going to try to weasel to implication? You were so certain I called OP a Christian a moment ago, but when you actually read what I wrote you found out that was your only your interpretation?

Kinda takes the bite out of that sarcasm you were going for, don't it?

First, you imply I'm a weasel. Then, you imply I was "going for sarcasm". That's attacking the person, not the argument. In fact, you haven't attacked my arguments ONCE in this entire discussion. You haven't even offered a single rebuttal to the two points I mentioned above.

You come into this thread and start throwing around terms like "red herring" and then act butt hurt when someone calls you on your own garbage?

This was a perfectly civil discussion at one point, and I personally thought the OP deserved some real insight. Not some junior league debate club president who thinks he's Hitchens gift to the internet.

Gryphon66... He (or she) is asserting in the OP that certain truths were once valued in the US and they aren't now. The particular "brand name" on those truths doesn't matter. It happens that he was categorizing those as Christian values.

Thus my point.

Yes, I had to say ''Christianity'' because it used to be the dominant force in keeping American society grounded and sane, during a time when marraige was defined as being between a man and a woman and prayer had its place in schools. Along the way, these things mysteriously disappeared to be replaced by the very things that Christians frowned upon. I believe it was the result of mysterious forces acting deliberately against the institutions of church and family.

DeadSeraph

Gryphon66
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Oh, so now you're going to try to weasel to implication? You were so certain I called OP a Christian a moment ago, but when you actually read what I wrote you found out that was your only your interpretation?

Kinda takes the bite out of that sarcasm you were going for, don't it?

First, you imply I'm a weasel. Then, you imply I was "going for sarcasm". That's attacking the person, not the argument. In fact, you haven't attacked my arguments ONCE in this entire discussion. You haven't even offered a single rebuttal to the two points I mentioned above.

You come into this thread and start throwing around terms like "red herring" and then act butt hurt when someone calls you on your own garbage?

This was a perfectly civil discussion at one point, and I personally thought the OP deserved some real insight. Not some junior league debate club president who thinks he's Hitchens gift to the internet.

Now THAT'S ad hominem.

See how it works, you're attacking me, and not my posts. Every "point" you made was shown to be mistaken. It's there, above, read it again. It's amazing what happens when you're faced with what I actually say, rather than what you think I said.

LOL, I didn't call you a weasel, I claimed your argument was weaseling ... this is pretty basic stuff.

No need for a Hitchens here.

Gryphon66

DeadSeraph

Gryphon66
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Oh, so now you're going to try to weasel to implication? You were so certain I called OP a Christian a moment ago, but when you actually read what I wrote you found out that was your only your interpretation?

Kinda takes the bite out of that sarcasm you were going for, don't it?

First, you imply I'm a weasel. Then, you imply I was "going for sarcasm". That's attacking the person, not the argument. In fact, you haven't attacked my arguments ONCE in this entire discussion. You haven't even offered a single rebuttal to the two points I mentioned above.

You come into this thread and start throwing around terms like "red herring" and then act butt hurt when someone calls you on your own garbage?

This was a perfectly civil discussion at one point, and I personally thought the OP deserved some real insight. Not some junior league debate club president who thinks he's Hitchens gift to the internet.

Now THAT'S ad hominem.

See how it works, you're attacking me, and not my posts. Every "point" you made was shown to be mistaken. It's there, above, read it again. It's amazing what happens when you're faced with what I actually say, rather than what you think I said.

LOL, I didn't call you a weasel, I claimed your argument was weaseling ... this is pretty basic stuff.

No need for a Hitchens here.

Appeal to ridicule?

If you could point out where my 2 points were shown to be mistaken that would be great. You're a #ty troll.