Now?

Well, <big pawn> , this is what I and <johnlspouge> have been saying all along. It is that you understood only 'now'? How come , <big pawn> ? Language barrier? Your elite poster <diceman> too has no clue what you talking about ? No ? You have no problem with language ? Then what ? Reason of lack of clarity - both in understanding as well as in communicating - is due to your low level of critical thinking and logical intelligence ? Well, whatever. Moving on.

<Big pawn> <You are unaware of your assertions and what they imply.

A value is an abstract object, like a number, an as such cannot exist in the universe.>

No , <big pawn> you are unaware of your assertion and what they imply. You are unaware of your assumptions as well.

Do you have any clue what laws of universe include?

They include maths - calculus , even partial differential equations. They exist in universe. Are they not abstract ?

How come they exist ?

They part of nature of your god ?

What ? You were not aware of all this ?

You were not aware of the assumption that you made that laws of universe can exist without any 'aid' from your god but moral values can not ?

Did you give any argument that why laws can exist without any 'aid' from your god but moral values need 'aid' from your god.

You completely out of your depth , boy.

If you need any tutorial on ontological explanation of why laws of universe can exist without any aid from your god, feel free to ask , boy.

And if you are ever able to understand that , then feel free to finally start making sense and giving some arguments as to why if laws of universe do not need any aid from your god to exist , why should moral values.

So, boy , now that I have made you aware of your assumptions , assertions and such , finally get to the job of making some argument for a change.

All the best , boy.

They include maths - calculus , even partial differential equations. They exist in universe. Are they not abstract ?>

First, you aren't dealing with the first premise so this is off topic. Second, laws don't cause anything to happen, they only describe observed behavior.

You need to give your argument for your alternate explanation of how moral values can exist objectively sans God. Let's examine your answer and see if you've done that, or if you've tried to refute any points related to that.

<They include maths - calculus , even partial differential equations. They exist in universe. Are they not abstract ?

How come they exist ?

They part of nature of your god ?

What ? You were not aware of all this ?>

Your questions are not an argument, nor do they argue against any of my points. What's next?

<You were not aware of the assumption that you made that laws of universe can exist without any 'aid' from your god but moral values can not ?

Did you give any argument that why laws can exist without any 'aid' from your god but moral values need 'aid' from your god.>

More questions are not an argument. So far you've not gotten back into the ring. You need to present your argument and questions aren't an argument. What's next?

<You completely out of your depth , boy.>

Not an argument. I think you are giving up because this is more than half your response. What's next?

<If you need any tutorial on ontological explanation of why laws of universe can exist without any aid from your god, feel free to ask , boy.>

No argument or explanation given here either. Why bother writing all of this stuff? You need to explain how OMV can be founded in something other than God or shoot down my supporting points and you've done none of that. What's next?

<And if you are ever able to understand that , then feel free to finally start making sense and giving some arguments as to why if laws of universe do not need any aid from your god to exist , why should moral values.

So, boy , now that I have made you aware of your assumptions , assertions and such , finally get to the job of making some argument for a change.

All the best , boy. >

No explanations or arguments for an ontological foundation for OMV apart from God.

<sugardom>, are you following along?

Okay <Nizzle>, pay attention now. I was going to delete your comment because it made ZERO attempts to make your argument for how OMV could be founded transcendentally apart from God. ZERO. It did not grapple with my supporting points about abstract objects (like numbers and values) not standing in causal relations, and therefore can't cause anything, such as, a value can't cause us to experience it.

Look above my last comment and see <Nizzle's> final comment in the moral argument.

Scroll up, read it, and then come back.

***

Okay, now understand that for about a week, <Nizzle> has been under the burden of trying to refute the first premise, and, giving an alternate explanation for how objective moral values could be grounded in something other than God.

After a week, the above response was all he could come up with, and there is nothing there. It's not a bad argument, it's no argument at all. He might as well have just left a recipe for tandoor chicken.

I just want to point out that all those who debate me end up in this same situation, where they have were never able to give their own arguments.

To make matters worse for them, they only come to this point after first thinking that the argument is circular, invalid somehow and so on. It's only after suffering many blows and beatings that they FINALLY understand WHAT they have to do on their end.

And then we end up with <Nizzle's> post above.

1. If God <had never existed>, OMVs would not exist.

2. OMVs exist.

3. Therefore God <at some time existed>.

i.e. the necessary existence of God to create OMVs doesn't mandate the continued existence of God.>

I wouldn't say so, <Wilbur>.

1. First, God doesn't create moral values. They exist as a part of His nature and he is uncreated.

<existed> - past tense.

2. This formulation rests on a fundamental misunderstanding about the concept of God. God is a necessary being and an uncaused uncreated being. The concept of God is that he must exist and cannot not exist.

That's a nice way to put it.

Nizzie seems to claim that OMV existed by its own along with the laws of the universe without God.Absurd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejl...

She'd be doing great if her job were to just shut down <saffuna>. Sheesh, you were right, that guy is a gigantic idiot.

About the ignore function - <BP> you and I don't agree on it.

So I used that function on <Bartle>. Now that he knows I have him on ignore, he might use alternative facts to finally start posting about the alt-right.

And I won't know about it. I am not sure that even matters. Because if someone tries to call him on his BS, as I did today, he just runs away from it.

He provided no argument and no facts to substantiate his case that I am a gaslighter.

He provided no argument and no facts to back up his claim that the alt-right is white supremacist.

The irony is, they might be white supremacist. Bartle might be able to make that case, using facts.

But he is so habitualized to lying and running from honest debate, that he couldn't even seize the halfway-decent opportunity I afforded him.

And I did this intentionally. I went into the entire debate knowing full well that alt-right wants separation for the races, and that alt-right is pro "white" culture.

Anyway, he would run into problems trying to justify his claim that white nationalism = white supremacy. Since that is how his position evolved today, I can see why he wants to run from that argument.

Ah well, it is what it is.

So it isn't like I had a guaranteed win. Usually I pick my debate battles to guarantee a win. I didn't even do that today. I just wanted to hear some counter points to provide food for thought.

<The tuna> is as dishonest as it gets, and he also has very strict limitations on his ability to understand and express real arguments. He's just an old fart, chewing tobacco somewhere, blabbing out whatever drivel pops into mind given the tabloidesque political crap he reads.

Alt-Right is not white supremacist. The alt-right is a nebulous label that isn't clearly defined yet, and as such, there may be some crossover with white supremacists, neo-nazis and others, but at what seems to be it's core, it's not that.

Alt-Right is a white advocacy group but not a white supremacy group. They advocate for the "rights of whites" just like the black caucus does, or the hispanic "rights" organizations do. The Alt-Right believes in COMPLETE *freedom of association*. They also believe that white people have the right to want to remain a majority in this historically white nation. That is not white supremacism, but to the liberal eye, it may appear so.

The alt-right is also a nationalist group that puts America first. They want America to be put first and differ greatly from other conservative groups in the way they view foreign policy, for instance. The alt-right is largely non-interventionist.

The alt-right doesn't want white people to simply give away their status as the majority and willingly take on a status of minority. They like the culture of the nation as it is and as it was, as a majority white, European nation. White people have a certain distinct, unique culture in the world and they like it and want to keep it that way in America.

Because of this, they want to limit immigration so as not to fundamentally change America (sound like a familiar term?).

The left has certain challenges they can't seem to meet in this part of the intellectual arena.

For one, they can't argue the ideas, so they seek to tarnish everything and shut debate down by basically saying "RACIST" (calling the alt right a supremacist group is the same as the R word).

Another thing, they can't really give an argument as to what is *wrong* with white advocacy.

Note that placing someone on ignore is a totally different issue than being banished from a player page. That has only happened a handful of times in site history, primarily on the Raymond Keene page and the Wesley So page, and anyone banished in that fashion must be a Bad Person indeed. I mean Really Bad.

Social media has created a new category with people maintaining an alleged right to not be offended. We saw this at Berkeley with speakers being shut down because their freedom of speech turned into a protest against purported "hate speech," and Donald Trump encountered that when his rallies were shut down in Chicago and Arizona. So their "right" to not be offended supposedly supersedes anyone else's rights, period. The Rogoff page has been "special" for some time, yet I had a memorable post removed ("dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and violation of criminal law, also loss of consortium and malice") because someone was bothered by it. Instead of countering the arguments, they ran straight to Dad demanding that my work product be erased since it "bothered" them. You know what they say: the truth hurts.

Beware of feckless liberals seizing on one issue or one story and pretending that the future of our world depended on it. Thanksgiving 2015 was ruined by a Planned Parenthood shooting, then one poster gloated about "conservative voices fell silent" during the tragedy when normal people were at home spending time with their families. Presently, the Russian Nothingburger is called the "biggest story of our time" because they still want to install Hillary Clinton as President. Did you know Hillary Clinton was a woman? If you didn't, well, Hillary Clinton is a woman, and being a woman means she deserves bonus points for being a woman, because she's a woman, and equality for women means giving women bonus points for being a woman.

Trying to prove that someone here is "lying" one way or another is usually a fruitless endeavor.>

I don't believe it's possible to be honest and liberal.

(except for the stupid/ignorant who have no idea what they're actually supporting)

Social media has created a new category with people maintaining an alleged right to not be offended.>

I put <saffuna> on ignore not because he was being offensive.

But because he is an idiot.

Look, our time on earth is limited. I cannot waste my time on idiots. Look at the drivel of posters like <saffuna> and <DWOB>. It is just idiotic nonsense.

What they lack in quality of posting, they apparently seem to think they can compensate for with quantity.

<Bartle> saw a Nazi flag on TV, and somehow that is evidence against a particular political movement?

You have to be a simpleton to think something like that. Especially knowing that the Media are ratings whores with their own agendas to boot.

Yet <JB> accepts this categorically! Without criticism or thought. Why waste time on that?

Fight the good fight, <tpstar>, but I am not worried about a moron trolling a chess website. I have nothing to fear from <JB> posting 200 times a day, because that is just 200 times a day where he demonstrates that he is clueless.

According to <chancho>, the term was invented by paleoconservative Paul Gottfreid:

<chancho: <saffuna>

<Paul Gottfried is a paleoconservative critic of neoconservativism within the Republican Party. In fact, the term paleoconservative was first used by Paul Gottfried and Thomas Fleming, with the "paleo" prefix meaning "old" in opposition to the "neo", or "new", conservatives.

Gottfried is also notable as the first person to use the term <<<"alternative right",>>> when referring specifically to developments within American right-wing politics, in 2008.

The term has since gained wide currency with the rise of the so-called "alt-right".>>

There is indeed an alt right but it's a bit nebulous in terms of a solid definition because it's still forming. There is some overlap in the Alt Right because not everyone is clear on exactly what it is, including those who are against it and write about it.

The Alt Right has a light weight contingent in it that they call the Alt light, and they are having friction over what it means to be Alt Right. Michael Cernovich is considered Alt light, while Richard Spencer is very Alt Right. He's kind of an angry Alt Right guy, whereas Jared Taylor is more to my liking. He's not angry, has an academic and philosophical approach and always projects a calm, sensible and seasoned tone.

I think some of the neo nazi types and white hood types find themselves trying to go to the Alt Right so as to capitalize on their legitimacy. That is, the neo nazis and kkk types know that they have no political capital, and they also know there is a racial component to the Alt Right, as they identify as racial realists or racial identitarians and describe their group as one of white advocacy (consciously opposed to white supremacy), so they try to worm their way into the mainstream by piggybacking off of them.

I think Richard Spencer is a bit more radical than some of the others, frankly, and I think he's more sympathetic to folks like former congressman and kkk member David Duke.

On the other hand, I find people like Jared Taylor less radical and more reasonable, but not mainstream by any means, yet I want to use that word to contrast him to Spencer.

White advocates believe in complete freedom of association and maintaining a clear white majority. They see real differences between the races and seek to create laws and policies that are in harmony with racial reality rather than pursue what has become a sort of pathological altruism based on a delusional, utopic, egalitarianism.

Some might say that the Alt Right is just soft white supremacy, but the real white supremacist think the Alt Right is a bit cucky and timid, yet the Alt Right is happy where it is, in reasonable proximity to mainstream acceptance. They want to become the new Right.

The Alt Right is still coalescing but there are Christians and atheists in it, capitalist and socially leaning, but mostly libertarian in their social outlook and foreign policy, non interventionist views.

They differ from libertarians in that their main focus is immigration, that is, preserving the white European culture that forms American cultural identity.

Hopefully that gives you all something to chew on.

https://www.amren.com/commentary/20...

<Three Big Questions After Charlottesville

Anarcho-tyranny is here. How will we respond?

Future historians may view the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville as a turning point for the alt-right and the race-realist movement in America.>

This is known at the big lie tactic.

‪Leftist reaction to Antifa violence; "Punch a Nazi".‬

‪That's the difference.‬

Critical Thinking An Introduction-Alec Fisher

https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thi...

Watching the fallout from Charlottesville, I am uncomfortable with the idea of White Nationalism, and I can see how adherents can be viewed as taking the short trip to White Supremacy. I would understand the term "Nationalism" as preserving rights for everyday Americans without giving special treatment to any interest groups and while limiting immigration, but once you insert the term "White" I believe that crosses the line into racism and discrimination, especially the idea of "maintaining a clear White majority." I also despise the terms "White America" and "Black America" as being instantly divisive; we're supposed to be post-racial.

"Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America" by Eugene Robinson (Doubleday, New York, 2010) was published right after President Obama was elected. Consider this overview:

"There was a time when there were agreed upon 'black leaders,' when there was a clear 'black agenda,' when we could talk confidently about 'the state of black America' - but not anymore. Not after decades of desegregation, affirmative action, and urban decay; not after globalization decimated the working class and trickle-down economics sorted the nation into winners and losers; not after the biggest wave of black immigration from Africa and the Caribbean since slavery; not after most people ceased to notice - much less care - when a black man and a white woman walked down the street hand in hand. These are among the forces and trends that have had the unintended consequence of tearing black America to pieces."

"Ever wonder why black elected officials spend so much time talking about purely symbolic 'issues,' like an official apology for slavery? Or why they never miss a chance to denounce a racist outburst from a rehab-bound celebrity? It's because symbolism, history, and old-fashioned racism are about the only things they can be sure their African American constituents still have in common."

"Barack Obama's stunning election as the first African American president seemed to come out of nowhere, but it was the result of a transformation that has been unfolding for decades. With implications both hopeful and dispiriting, black America has undergone a process of disintegration."

"Disintegration isn't something black America likes to talk about. But it's right there, documented in census data, economic reports, housing patterns, and a wealth of other evidence just begging for honest analysis. And it's right there in our daily lives, if we allow ourselves to notice. Instead of one black America, now there are four:

1) A Mainstream middle-class majority with a full ownership stake in American society

2) A large, Abandoned minority with less hope of escaping poverty and dysfunction than at any time since Reconstruction's crushing end

3) A small Transcendent elite with such enormous wealth, power, and influence that even white folks have to genuflect

4) Two newly Emergent groups - individuals of mixed-race heritage and communities of recent black immigrants - that make us wonder what 'black' is even supposed to mean"

One more quote please:

"Solidarity has been one of black Americans' most powerful weapons in the struggle for freedom, justice, and opportunity."

*****