Spring Break
Three 6 Mafia to visit Starkville
Abstract:
I feel bad. I made an egregious error last week. Like all of the comments on The Reflector Web site pointed out, I shouldn't have said that cross country isn't a sport before actually trying it myself....
- Displaying 1 - 13 of 13
Late to the Fire
posted 10/07/08 @ 3:23 PM CST
Originally posted byMark O'Neil
Mr. Scribner said,
"...However, I sincerely doubt you really believe that there is no objective moral truth and thus you really DO have some sort of personal set of morals and do have a burst of personal moral outrage from time to time. If you say you have "no morals at all" then "should you not practice what you literally preach," right? If so, then existentially that belief of yours is a scary thought for everyone who is in your life and also very fitting right now for the month of October.
Having a personal set of morals is about the most subjective thing you can do. Maybe you should brush up on subjective vs. objective.
Mark O'Neil
posted 10/07/08 @ 5:06 PM CST
If you are person who believes there is no objective moral truth, then "yes" Mr. Scribner's morals are indeed subjective, which is exactly as I stated the case to be with Mr. Scribner. Notice that Mr. Scribner then goes on to respond that maybe his God does not dictate moral truth to him, which again goes back to my original argument about Mr. Scribner having a "personal" set of morals, so I am very well aware of the difference between objective and subjective morality. Mr. Scribner has basically admitted 2 times to having no belief in objective moral truth. I was just pointing out that existentially his position is consistent with one known form of Atheism, since Mr. Scribner has also demonstrated an aversion to religion also.
R.L. Scribner
posted 10/07/08 @ 11:29 PM CST
You really just don't get it at all, Mark. When you made those two sarcastic responses a few days ago, I thought that maybe you had caught on. I guess I was wrong.
Mark O'Neil
posted 10/08/08 @ 10:47 AM CST
Hello Mr. Scribner,
"Late to the Fire" was discussing the logic and not the humor, so I responded in kind. However, I'm glad you appreciated my sarcasm, I was worried that you were crushed beyond recovery.
"Late to the Fire" was discussing the logic and not the humor, so I responded in kind. However, I'm glad you appreciated my sarcasm, I was worried that you were crushed beyond recovery.
Jesus Jones
posted 9/30/08 @ 10:50 AM CST
I can't handle a lighthearted opinion column! Therefore, Robert Scribner must be the Antichrist! He even listens to the hip-hop. That proves it!
R.L. Scribner
posted 9/30/08 @ 10:59 AM CST
Mr. O'Neil,
Do you ever look past the literal meaning of words?
Your existential replies seem to indicate that you do not, which leads me to the conclusion that you are likely a very boring person to spend time with.
Have a fun time objectively scanning this response, and I sincerely hope that you find truth in it. Which would be an inherent falsehood, but maybe it will leave you contented.
Do you ever look past the literal meaning of words?
Your existential replies seem to indicate that you do not, which leads me to the conclusion that you are likely a very boring person to spend time with.
Have a fun time objectively scanning this response, and I sincerely hope that you find truth in it. Which would be an inherent falsehood, but maybe it will leave you contented.
Mark O'Neil
posted 10/04/08 @ 7:03 AM CST
Originally posted byR.L. Scribner
Mr. O'Neil,
Do you ever look past the literal meaning of words?
Your existential replies seem to indicate that you do not, which leads me to the conclusion that you are likely a very boring person to spend time with.
Have a fun time objectively scanning this response, and I sincerely hope that you find truth in it. Which would be an inherent falsehood, but maybe it will leave you contented.
Hello Mr. Scribner,
Please stop your frenetic and humorous responses before I die from laughter! Or perhaps I should yuck up the crowd with "Your mama IS..." jokes.
R.L. Scribner
posted 9/30/08 @ 11:11 AM CST
"The history of your previous public statements (if true) would seem to potentially support the following logical conclusions about you to be true:
1) Without God there is no objective moral truth.
2) There is no objective moral truth.
3) Therefore God does not exist."
Mr O'Neil,
Also, this is a logical fallacy. Presupposing that "without God there is no objective moral truth," and considering that a certain person person does not believe in objective moral truth, that does not lead that person to declare that God does not exist. A person could believe that there is no objective moral truth, and he could still believe in God. The God he believes in would just not have dictated any objective moral truths.
Perhaps I am that person...
Perhaps not.
Later, dudester.
1) Without God there is no objective moral truth.
2) There is no objective moral truth.
3) Therefore God does not exist."
Mr O'Neil,
Also, this is a logical fallacy. Presupposing that "without God there is no objective moral truth," and considering that a certain person person does not believe in objective moral truth, that does not lead that person to declare that God does not exist. A person could believe that there is no objective moral truth, and he could still believe in God. The God he believes in would just not have dictated any objective moral truths.
Perhaps I am that person...
Perhaps not.
Later, dudester.
Mark O'Neil
posted 10/04/08 @ 7:23 AM CST
Originally posted byR.L. Scribner
"The history of your previous public statements (if true) would seem to potentially support the following logical conclusions about you to be true:
1) Without God there is no objective moral truth.
2) There is no objective moral truth.
3) Therefore God does not exist."
Mr O'Neil,
Also, this is a logical fallacy. Presupposing that "without God there is no objective moral truth," and considering that a certain person person does not believe in objective moral truth, that does not lead that person to declare that God does not exist. A person could believe that there is no objective moral truth, and he could still believe in God. The God he believes in would just not have dictated any objective moral truths.
Perhaps I am that person...
Perhaps not.
Later, dudester.
Mr. Scribner,
Please do tell us more about this logical fallacy. I would sincerely would love to hear more about it so I can take copious notes to document it.
R.F. Chautin
posted 9/30/08 @ 12:08 PM CST
"Still, I find it to be a very interesting contradiction. I wonder, how does one reconcile his beliefs with this very awesome, albeit very secular music? Should you not practice what you literally preach?
I'm not really sure if you should or not. Luckily, I don't have any morals at all, so I don't have to worry about such frivolities."
I frequently wonder about things like this as well. Not because I worry about them but because it's entertaining. Perhaps my morals are questionable. That is, if I have any. Sir O'Neil seems to have them, and he believes that he is a better person with them and judges those without them, which probably goes against his own morals. It's a paradox. Does that mean that Sir O'Neil has morals and chooses to deviate from them, or was he just mistaken to begin with? Perhaps the whole definition of morals is skewed, and we need to take time to re-evaluate it. What better place is there to do that than here?
I'm not really sure if you should or not. Luckily, I don't have any morals at all, so I don't have to worry about such frivolities."
I frequently wonder about things like this as well. Not because I worry about them but because it's entertaining. Perhaps my morals are questionable. That is, if I have any. Sir O'Neil seems to have them, and he believes that he is a better person with them and judges those without them, which probably goes against his own morals. It's a paradox. Does that mean that Sir O'Neil has morals and chooses to deviate from them, or was he just mistaken to begin with? Perhaps the whole definition of morals is skewed, and we need to take time to re-evaluate it. What better place is there to do that than here?
Mark O'Neil
posted 10/04/08 @ 8:03 AM CST
Originally posted byR.F. Chautin
"Still, I find it to be a very interesting contradiction. I wonder, how does one reconcile his beliefs with this very awesome, albeit very secular music? Should you not practice what you literally preach?
I'm not really sure if you should or not. Luckily, I don't have any morals at all, so I don't have to worry about such frivolities."
I frequently wonder about things like this as well. Not because I worry about them but because it's entertaining. Perhaps my morals are questionable. That is, if I have any. Sir O'Neil seems to have them, and he believes that he is a better person with them and judges those without them, which probably goes against his own morals. It's a paradox. Does that mean that Sir O'Neil has morals and chooses to deviate from them, or was he just mistaken to begin with? Perhaps the whole definition of morals is skewed, and we need to take time to re-evaluate it. What better place is there to do that than here?
People make moral judgments all the time such as it is wrong to commit murder, to steal, to rape, to cheat, etc. The world would be a much more chaotic and despotic place without any moral judgments or perhaps it would lead to a utopia as some people like to believe when it is convenient for them to do so.
People make statements all the time that reveal their beliefs about the world, but they never think through them carefully or listen to what they are actually saying. They do not even realize they are revealing beliefs about themselves that they would normally not discuss so openly or publicly.
"The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates
Mandy O'Neil
posted 10/01/08 @ 4:41 PM CST
Mark, get back in and stop talkin' on that computer no nonsensical hibbity-gibbity! I made you some biscuits!
- Displaying 1 - 13 of 13
Mark O'Neil
posted 9/30/08 @ 6:44 AM CST
"Still, I find it to be a very interesting contradiction. I wonder, how does one reconcile his beliefs with this very awesome, albeit very secular music? Should you not practice what you literally preach?
I'm not really sure if you should or not. Luckily, I don't have any morals at all, so I don't have to worry about such frivolities." End of qoute.
Well this comment of yours in this piece explains your aversion to a "Religion" comment of mine in a previous opinion piece, and also lets everyone know that you are potentially an untrustworthy character because of your claim to lack any "morals".
The history of your previous public statements (if true) would seem to potentially support the following logical conclusions about you to be true:
1) Without God there is no objective moral truth.
2) There is no objective moral truth.
3) Therefore God does not exist.
However, I sincerely doubt you really believe that there is no objective moral truth and thus you really DO have some sort of personal set of morals and do have a burst of personal moral outrage from time to time. If you say you have "no morals at all" then "should you not practice what you literally preach," right? If so, then existentially that belief of yours is a scary thought for everyone who is in your life and also very fitting right now for the month of October.