I'm going to leave this here. Clearly you are not willing to engage honestly, sincerely, and respectfully. May our paths never again cross.

Evidently I think your “rules” are made up from thin air. — NOS4A2

Well no. You do not believe that. You know that there are rules for debate and that they are not of my own making.

Good intentions and 'good faith' discussions are proven by following the rules of acceptable debate.

That's true.

What’s your hesitation on beginning the “debate”? It’s been a few pages of you doing this now. — NOS4A2

I'm waiting for you to give your word to follow the rules of acceptable debate. You - evidently - know them already.

Never said it did. You're arguing against an imaginary opponent.

I’ve never seen a formal debate without a structure and resolution, but only a list of a few fallacies that are strictly forbidden — NOS4A2

If you know them, what's the hesitation? That list wasn't meant to be complete.

That’s not true at all. — NOS4A2

What's not true at all?

I’m not sure I can make such a promise given the political nature. — NOS4A2

What does the political nature of the discussion have to do with following the rules of debate?

I do not know your intentions. I didn't dismiss your good intentions. I'm skeptical - rightly so given your hesitance to give your word.

Hence, upfront... here in the beginning... I'm asking for your word. Good intentions and 'good faith' discussions are proven by following the rules of acceptable debate. I'm not making them up. I'm pointing them out and advocating for their use. Would you like a full list/description?

You entered into a debate here. Are you prepared to follow the rules of acceptable(civil) debate?

Do I have your word?

Do you care about meeting standards?
— creativesoul

How many more pages of his trolling do you need to convince you that he does not? — praxis

Bear with me...

That's good. I'm not sold on the sincerity. Forgive my skepticism.

The notion of "good faith" is much too vague.

Will you recognize and honor the rules of acceptable debate? They provide the framework for civilized discussion between participants. They allow reasoned discussion to happen. They help to foster an ability to compare/contrast opposing and/or contrasting opinions/statements/world-views. They eliminate overt agression and inevitably reveal covert(passive) aggression.

I'm awaiting your word... your agreement... that we will both work from the standards of acceptable debate.

Do I have your word?

Realise you're frequenting a website where people will use ad homs while debating nothing. And they all think they're capable of civilized debate. — Benkei

Indeed. No argument here. It still needs to be done.

I'm not conflating this conversation with current political events. I can expect someone to follow the rules of acceptable debate and it can be the case that current politicians do not adhere to those rules.

No. I'm not.

Do you care about meeting standards?

The standards of acceptable debate apply to us both equally.

Gratuitous assertions are unacceptable. Red Herrings are unacceptable. Poisoning the well is unacceptable. Ad homs are unacceptable. Non sequiturs are unacceptable. Incoherence/self-contradiction is unacceptable. Being in direct conflict with everyday events and knowledge is unacceptable.

Do you care about meeting standards?

Zat it then?

Ask yourself why you're replying to NOS4A2. Are you thinking he'll engage in some meaningful way? That he'll see the error of his ways and have a "come to Christ" moment, that you will have somehow brought to have happen? Because you're right and he will see and acknowledge that you're right - even regretting the error of his ways and seeking redemption? Is he something you think you can cure? That is, are you thinking that there is anything reasonable or honorable about him?

You will profit more by cornering a badger in its hole and attempting to pat its head to show it how loving and kind you are. I'm guessing that the stitches and shots that you will need if you try that would be an occasion for learning. But NO's poison is more subtle. It lacks the honesty of bite and direct attack. It is instead the poison of the lie and the evil of the lie. You tell me: what do you do - what is right to do - about a badger in your house, or a liar? — tim wood

Whoa, that's quite a few logically possible sets of reasons that you've attributed to my words.

Lying is a part of the world. I'm not here to call out someone for deliberately misrepresenting their own thought/belief.

I'm here because someone needs to do this the right way...

Let "this" be provide a cogent counterargument. Let "the right way" indicate the quality of reasonably, respectfully, and undeniably cutting the common rhetorical media and pundit talking points(in Trump's favor) off at the knees.

Maybe you have the wrong kind of badger trap...

I took your question as a round-about way of saying my arguments were unacceptable. If I’m wrong I apologize, but I wager that is exactly where you’re going to go if I answer... — NOS4A2

Good. We understand each other.

When one enters into a public philosophy forum and begins arguing, s/he/they enter into a voluntary obligation to defend their statements in light of valid criticism. I'm looking to critique. While doing so, I'll offer my own reasoning and/or justificatory ground for what I'm asserting.

Ready to get off the porch?

...who wants to keep getting dirty playing with this piece of slime. — tim wood

Resorting to the same ungrounded school-yard-style name calling will surely get both dirty...

It's not silly to ask someone if they actually believe that what they are saying is acceptable. Normally, I grant the sincerity of a speaker. Here, I've good reason to suspect something else is driving the responses. As mentioned earlier... some of the replies make no sense in light of what preceded them. I would like to discuss those, and will... with or without your participation. Offering you a chance to defend your claims is the first step.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

Here's an interesting thing that Trump tweeted today:

The New FoxNews is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore!

Wow! Even Trump believes Fox worked for him, and thinks that's the way it should be!
Kudos to Fox for showing signs of independence. — Relativist

I wouldn't get too hopeful. There are far too many unknown influencing variables for that particular Trumpian rant. Like a child without metacognitive skill... in freudian terms... without superego.

Do you seriously believe that your 'arguments' here("counterpoints" is a better description) are acceptable?

I don’t care whether you accept them or not. — NOS4A2

There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding. I did not ask if you care if I accept the counterpoints you've provided here. I asked if you thought/believed that they are/were acceptable - as in relevant, reasonable, valid, and/or otherwise 'rational' - replies to the remarks preceding them?

Off the top of my head, I remember at least a couple that made no sense in light of what they were supposed to be replying to.

Do you seriously believe that your 'arguments' here("counterpoints" is a better description) are acceptable?

Morality is one of these things.

The difference between being 'X' and being called 'X' is determined by whether or not we are the deciding factor in what counts as 'X'. Elemental constituency.

Some things exist in their entirety prior to the very first report/account of them.

By the standard you describe, child sacrifice is moral, so long as the community agrees to this and enforces this law — Marzipanmaddox

That doesn't follow from what I wrote. That is morality. That follows. You're conflating moral judgment that is based upon one's morality with morality.

One's obligation to the rest of society.

Have a problem with that ?

So...

A morality based upon the God of Abraham. Treating others how God instructs. A collection of stories passed down through the generations through oral and written tradition.

Today we know that money is power.

Possessing large sums of cash is possessing large sums of what is available to the members of society. Society is much better off if it includes the most people with the most opportunity to reap the benefits of that society.

Accumulation of wealth cannot happen without society.

The money available is best dispersed in as many hands as possible. To hoard the money is to rob the other members of it's possible benefits when better dispersed. To hoard money harms the economy of it's potential to do the most good. It is to walk up to a table of 4 pizzas meant to feed 8 to 10 people and further proceed to a take a whole one with you on your out, but not eat it.

Magically it turns into two. You offer no one a piece of either.

God condones this?

It is not possible to avoid the religious capital gains tax, though (2.5%). — alcontali

Why not?

No one is talking about unlimited liability except you.

So, then...

You're ok with accepting some financial obligation - to maintain the society you belong to - as long as it is a clearly demarcated amount?

A percentage of earnings?

So, it seems that you do not think/believe that you are in any way at all - outside of scripture - financially obligated to the society you belong to?

Extensive egalitarianism works for relatively small communities. It does not scale, however. From some larger scale on, you need to switch to tit-for-tat trade. Otherwise, if you indiscriminately recognize everybody else's unilateral sharing rights on your assets, you will put yourself at risk of Gambler's Ruin.

That is the meaning of the following Quranic verse:

Quran: 2:275- 279 Allah has permitted trading and forbidden ‘Riba’ interest (usury) — alcontali

Interesting. Didn't know that there were thoughts about unilateral sharing rights and assets in the Quran. Certainly none in the Pentateuch.

I have got nothing to do with trillions of dollars of unfunded social-security entitlements. — alcontali

Are you suggesting to let the less fortunate and elderly people suffer needlessly?

Are you suggesting that a nation can survive/thrive without some folk paying a larger percentage of their earnings than other?

We agree there right?

Less fortunate and elderly people ought be helped. That's one thing. Do you agree?

Helping less fortunate people has a cost. That's another. Do you agree?

Governing a nation of people has a cost. That's another. Do you agree?

I depicted no such thing as unlimited liability.

Well, according to the Quran, one's unilateral financial obligation to society is limited to the size of the mandatory charity levy, which is 2.5% of net capital gains. — alcontali

Yeah those ancient authors and their economic jargon...

Those who benefit the most from society have the greatest burden of repayment(debt). Without a society, the accumulation of monetary financial wealth is impossible.

Morality is a set of codified rules of behaviour. All such rules are subject to the individual(cultural, societal, social, familial, and/or historical) particulars.