Morality Defined

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Because that is not a definition of morality, if it were, wolfpacks and street gangs would be moral, and they clearly are not.

I have expressly said street gangs are NOT moral because they victimize individuals outside the group and do no facilitate cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with individuals out side the group.

Given this mischaracterization of my position, which I've repeatedly corrected, I dismiss the rest of your post out of hand.

If you alter your definition to include mutual benefit to all peoples, you have a definition of the basis for all organized religion.

The organized religions I know of are not beneficial to all individuals, they have a clear ingroup and preach destuction of others.

So, by your own definitions, morality is either the same behavior practiced by wolves and street gangs, or it's the behavior practiced by members of organized religious groups.

Since you misrepresentated my positions, and the nature of relgion, you're 2X wrong.

This lame definition of what you think morality is, doesn't explain how morality came to be.

Yes it does.

There is no scientific basis or natural reasoning for an evolving animal to assume the characteristic without initial faith and trust.

Yes there is.

You can't prove it, you can't give me an example of it, because it is inherently impossible to do so. This is why you've relegated yourself to sounding like a WWE character and insisting you've won something you haven't.

I've explained why the definition workds. And I have won everything. I hold the title.

In order for man to have entered into a 'social contract' with other humans, it had to be preceded with faith and trust, otherwise, there is no rationale for such a contradiction to nature.

I disagree.

In order for man to have even rationalized morality and moral behavior, there first had to be trust and faith in something else. The only plausible explanation otherwise, is that God magically bestowed this ability to rationalize morality on man when he created him. Given you claim to be Atheist, I don't think that is what you are trying to argue, but it is plausible. In order for anything remotely close to your argument to prevail, requires a faith and trust establishment first. There is no logical, scientific, Darwinist, natural or evolutionary reason for this behavior otherwise.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like, if you want to continue to believe in a Myth, you can do so, no one will stop you, but please stop trying to shove your myths down my throat. You can define morality any way you like, as I pointed out, Hitler thought he was being moral by ridding the world of Jews. The thing you can't do, is change science and nature. On this, you are not the empirical authority, no matter how much hot air you spew. You can't prevail in a debate where you have offered no evidence to support your idea, and it doesn't matter how much you want to claim otherwise, that is a fact of the matter. I've shown you where you are wrong, and how you are wrong, I have offered explanations to support my view, I have given examples of what might have occurred, and how morality may have originated, as well as explaining why humans have this attribute while other animals, including primates, do not.

All you can do is continue to repeat the same illogical irrational and idiotic viewpoint of what morality is, without any logical or rational explanation for how it would have originated. In short, you are a blowhard and a retard. You've not "fisted" anyone here, you've not bent anyone over against their will, you've not trounced anyone or won the WWE Championship Grudge Match. You've spewed idiocy for 6 pages and failed to make your point. If calling people names and talking like a bad ass were the criteria for winning arguments, you would have won this one long ago, you are persistent, I will give you that, but those are not the criteria for winning arguments, they are the criteria for proving you are a dumb ass. Congrats, you win that argument!

Blah blah. I stopped reading, considering the misrepresentations you had stacked up early on.

You suck at thinking.

Morality is a way of behaving that facililtates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships between individuals.

You = fisted again.

Please stay down this time. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have not misrepresented a damn thing, I took your statement as you posted it and showed you how nature defies your theory. The definition you gave for morality is the behavior of wild packs of animals, nothing more. That is not morality, and never will be. The basis for all religious belief, is benefit to all mankind through the teachings of their dogma and doctrine, whether you personally agree with it or not, that is their intent and purpose, and why they formed a religious organization. I am sorry this is the case, I wish I could say you are correct on this point, but you simply are not correct. Although some cults are formed with the intent of destruction of others and a self-defined exclusive group, most organized religion is not. Again, you may disagree with their philosophy, or you may not agree that their ideas are beneficial to all mankind, I don't argue that, but you simply can't argue their intent and fundamental purpose.

This debate is not whether Religion is sole arbiter of Morality, I have never made such a statement, although it seems to continue to be a point you keep wanting to attribute to me. I have merely stated that Morality was preceded by trust and faith, otherwise it would not, and could not exist. Spiritual belief is the root and basis for trust and faith, so it stands to reason this was likely how Morality emerged. Supporting evidence would be the fact that both Morality and Spirituality are unique human attributes. No other species of life practices human morality, nor do they practice human spirituality.

Atheism is the belief there is no God, and you can certainly believe their is no God and still scientifically conclude that mankind came to adopt Morality through spiritual beliefs, customs, and culture. You are not agreeing with those beliefs, customs, and culture to acknowledge they were the root and foundation of morality, nor are you stating morality can't exist without spiritual beliefs. Perhaps it can, perhaps mankind has "evolved" to the point where they can practice morality without having any spiritual foundation for the trust and faith required, that is possible I suppose. It's unfortunately not what you've chosen to argue, you want to disconnect morality from spirituality and pretend it came about through natural evolution, which can't be supported in logic,reasoning, or science.

 

[Minister of Truth]

In your fantasy world, maybe. In reality, I keep bending you over against your will.

What are you talking about? I have just owned you again! but you may be a masochist, so it may not be against your will...

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

What are you talking about? I have just owned you again! but you may be a masochist, so it may not be against your will...

No, my ignorant duck fart of a friend, it is I who have owned YOU.

Feel the pwnage.

 

[Minister of Truth]

What pwnage? All I see is you going down repeatedly like this -

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I have not misrepresented a damn thing, I took your statement as you posted it and showed you how nature defies your theory. The definition you gave for morality is the behavior of wild packs of animals, nothing more.

You have misrepresented my position and religion. I have said Gang behavior is not moral because it vicitimizes outside individuals. Human morality is not exactly the same as animal morality but it's similar.

That is not morality, and never will be. The basis for all religious belief, is benefit to all mankind through the teachings of their dogma and doctrine, whether you personally agree with it or not, that is their intent and purpose, and why they formed a religious organization.

I disagree. I see most religions as being for the benefit of a select group, to the detriment of others.

I am sorry this is the case, I wish I could say you are correct on this point, but you simply are not correct. Although some cults are formed with the intent of destruction of others and a self-defined exclusive group, most organized religion is not.

you're simply wrong.

Again, you may disagree with their philosophy, or you may not agree that their ideas are beneficial to all mankind, I don't argue that, but you simply can't argue their intent and fundamental purpose.

I think they lie about their fundamental purpose.

This debate is not whether Religion is sole arbiter of Morality, I have never made such a statement, although it seems to continue to be a point you keep wanting to attribute to me. I have merely stated that Morality was preceded by trust and faith, otherwise it would not, and could not exist.

And you further said that that initial trust and faith MUST come from spiritual. But I disagree with you that trust and faith must even come first. Trust can be earned.

Spiritual belief is the root and basis for trust and faith, so it stands to reason this was likely how Morality emerged.

No it isn't. No it doesn't.

Supporting evidence would be the fact that both Morality and Spirituality are unique human attributes. No other species of life practices human morality, nor do they practice human spirituality.

They practice a form of morality, but they typically are unable to incorporate new members in a flexible manner.

Atheism is the belief there is no God, and you can certainly believe their is no God and still scientifically conclude that mankind came to adopt Morality through spiritual beliefs, customs, and culture.

Which are just easier ways to describe mutual beneficial and cooperative behavior.

You are not agreeing with those beliefs, customs, and culture to acknowledge they were the root and foundation of morality, nor are you stating morality can't exist without spiritual beliefs. Perhaps it can, perhaps mankind has "evolved" to the point where they can practice morality without having any spiritual foundation for the trust and faith required, that is possible I suppose. It's unfortunately not what you've chosen to argue, you want to disconnect morality from spirituality and pretend it came about through natural evolution, which can't be supported in logic,reasoning, or science.

Yes i do want to disconnect morality from spirituality. And It can be supported, and I have done so. Give it a rest, mushroom-head.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You have misrepresented my position and religion. I have said Gang behavior is not moral because it vicitimizes outside individuals. Human morality is not exactly the same as animal morality but it's similar.

Nope, not similar in any regard, in fact, in most cases it is directly opposite, animals do not generally have a conscience about moral right and wrong, they behave according to instinctual survival skills. They have no emotional remorse for behaving immorally, or awareness of consequence in such behavior.

I disagree. I see most religions as being for the benefit of a select group, to the detriment of others.

I just stated you are perfectly entitled to see it however you like, it doesn't change the fact that no organized religion has ever been formed for the express purpose of detriment to others for benefit to a select group. That may be your idea of their philosophy, it doesn't make it their idea and intent by proxy.

you're simply wrong.

About what and how? That seems to be what you have a problem articulating!

I think they lie about their fundamental purpose.

Again, entitled to think whatever you like.

And you further said that that initial trust and faith MUST come from spiritual. But I disagree with you that trust and faith must even come first. Trust can be earned.

Initial trust had to follow faith to enable any rational thought process which would have fostered Morality. There is no basis for it, otherwise. It defies Darwin's theories for there to be any reason or purpose for such an attribute being acquired through natural selection. If you don't believe me, go read Darwin's theory again, because it is very clear on this. The attribute of Morality is not physically required by the species. You may speculate as to why men adopted moral code, but the fact remains it had to involve a sense of trust and faith before it would have even been a rationalization made by an evolving species. There is no basis in science for 'it just happened that way.'

No it isn't. No it doesn't.

Pwned and Pwned.

They practice a form of morality, but they typically are unable to incorporate new members in a flexible manner.

WTF?

Which are just easier ways to describe mutual beneficial and cooperative behavior.

No, you have said it had nothing to do with Spiritual beliefs and customs.

Yes i do want to disconnect morality from spirituality. And It can be supported, and I have done so. Give it a rest, mushroom-head.

No you haven't. And uhm, no.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Nope, not similar in any regard, in fact, in most cases it is directly opposite, animals do not generally have a conscience about moral right and wrong, they behave according to instinctual survival skills. They have no emotional remorse for behaving immorally, or awareness of consequence in such behavior.

It is similar. It's not opposite. You don't know what they feel. Damn, you're stupid.

I just stated you are perfectly entitled to see it however you like, it doesn't change the fact that no organized religion has ever been formed for the express purpose of detriment to others for benefit to a select group.

Ummm. Most are that way, in fact.

That may be your idea of their philosophy, it doesn't make it their idea and intent by proxy.

You don't know their intent. When it' codified in text, it can safely be assumed to be the intent.

About what and how? That seems to be what you have a problem articulating!

everything and in all ways. Generally.

Again, entitled to think whatever you like.

As do you.

Initial trust had to follow faith to enable any rational thought process which would have fostered Morality.

No it didn't.

There is no basis for it, otherwise. It defies Darwin's theories for there to be any reason or purpose for such an attribute being acquired through natural selection.

Yes. There is a basis for it otherwis.e

If you don't believe me, go read Darwin's theory again, because it is very clear on this. The attribute of Morality is not physically required by the species.

Darwin is not the end of all thought on evolution. His ideas are a mere beginning. and while morality is not physically required, it is adaptive and physically beneficial to those practice it, physically, in the form increase hunt yields and or superior shelters built in a cooperative fashion, and a myriad of other benefits.

You may speculate as to why men adopted moral code, but the fact remains it had to involve a sense of trust and faith before it would have even been a rationalization made by an evolving species. There is no basis in science for 'it just happened that way.'

No it didnt. That's just your speculation.

Pwned and Pwned.



WTF?

You're fisted again. You love it, don't you.

No, you have said it had nothing to do with Spiritual beliefs and customs.




No you haven't. And uhm, no.

Don't even care what you're referencing here. Your idiocy has indicted you thoroughly.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is similar. It's not opposite. You don't know what they feel. Damn, you're stupid.

To the contrary, you are stupid. Animals other than humans do not behave based on their emotions. This has been studied, and concluded, and if you don't want to believe it, that is up to you, it doesn't make ME stupid.

Ummm. Most are that way, in fact.

Most may very well be that way in fact, but they did not organize their religion on that basis, nor is detriment to mankind ever the reason or justification for any organized religion. You have failed to prove your point.

You don't know their intent. When it' codified in text, it can safely be assumed to be the intent.

Show us the text codified by religious cannon, which specifies detriment to mankind. I don't believe such codified text exists except in your ignorant head.

everything and in all ways. Generally.

Nope and never, always.

As do you.

And my thinking is backed by logic, rationalization, and science. Yours is not.

No it didn't.

Yes it did, you can't give an explanation for why it wouldn't because it would defy nature.

Yes. There is a basis for it otherwis.e

I'm getting really tired of your stupid repetitive bullshit, either present some opposing evidence or shut the fuck up! You apparently are too incompetent to understand you haven't made the first point, nor have you offered anything to refute the points I've made except ...no it's not... no, you're wrong... no, I am right... i disagree... i don't see it that way... Do you think these statements are somehow relevant to the debate?

Darwin is not the end of all thought on evolution. His ideas are a mere beginning. and while morality is not physically required, it is adaptive and physically beneficial to those practice it, physically, in the form increase hunt yields and or superior shelters built in a cooperative fashion, and a myriad of other benefits.

Yes, when it comes to Darwin's theories of evolution and natural selection, Darwin is the foremost expert. If you wish to establish them as a "beginning" that is fine, but you must adhere to his principles unless you can disprove them, you can't just start making assumptions based on your gut feelings. I never said that man was incapable of adapting morality, I think it is fairly evident man has done precisely that. My argument is for the origin of Morality, and how it is impossible for this attribute to have naturally been assumed by an evolving species. You can cite the benefits of morality, and again, I have not argued that morality is not beneficial to man, merely it is not a physical requirement, and it would have to be in order to have occurred naturally through Darwin's evolution process. There is no basis in science or nature to conclude otherwise, and unless you can show us something, it really doesn't matter how much you personally disagree with this.

No it didnt. That's just your speculation.

Everything we are saying here is speculative, even the notion that mankind 'acquired' morality. It's not "just my speculation" because that fits the presentation you have made, my speculation is based on scientific observation and facts we know and understand to be true regarding nature. YOUR argument is "just your speculation" and you really have NO basis for it.

You're fisted again. You love it, don't you.

You're a moron.

Don't even care what you're referencing here. Your idiocy has indicted you thoroughly.

I'm done with you unless you start spewing more idiocy that isn't based in fact, reality, or science, then I will school you again for the whole class to see. As long as you have nothing to throw out there except your invalid opinion, I have won this debate and you have lost. You had better go do some fucking research, moron.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

To the contrary, you are stupid. Animals other than humans do not behave based on their emotions.

Did you ever get dive bombed by a bird when you're too close to a nest? That's ANGER in my book, but fine, keep being an idiot.

This has been studied, and concluded, and if you don't want to believe it, that is up to you, it doesn't make ME stupid.

No it hasn't.

Most may very well be that way in fact, but they did not organize their religion on that basis, nor is detriment to mankind ever the reason or justification for any organized religion. You have failed to prove your point.

No I haven't. You've failed to prove yours.

Show us the text codified by religious cannon, which specifies detriment to mankind. I don't believe such codified text exists except in your ignorant head.

There are codified texts that certain groups are favored to the detriment of others. Holy war against infidels. Second class citizenship for non jews. All of these are codified. And we can get into that if you like.

Nope and never, always.

Actually, you're continually idiotic.

And my thinking is backed by logic, rationalization, and science. Yours is not.

Yours is not. Mine is.

Yes it did, you can't give an explanation for why it wouldn't because it would defy nature.

No it didn't.

I'm getting really tired of your stupid repetitive bullshit, either present some opposing evidence or shut the fuck up!

I've reasoned through it all repeatedly. You're just too dense.

You apparently are too incompetent to understand you haven't made the first point, nor have you offered anything to refute the points I've made except ...no it's not... no, you're wrong... no, I am right... i disagree... i don't see it that way... Do you think these statements are somehow relevant to the debate?

I've made all points, convincingly. You are totally outgunned on all fronts.

Yes, when it comes to Darwin's theories of evolution and natural selection, Darwin is the foremost expert.

His theories are the beginning, not the end.

If you wish to establish them as a "beginning" that is fine, but you must adhere to his principles unless you can disprove them, you can't just start making assumptions based on your gut feelings.

Cooperative behaviors result in real physical benefits that increase survivability. It's true. Sorry.

I never said that man was incapable of adapting morality, I think it is fairly evident man has done precisely that. My argument is for the origin of Morality, and how it is impossible for this attribute to have naturally been assumed by an evolving species.

You know what happens when you assume? It makes an ASS of U, but not ME.

You can cite the benefits of morality, and again, I have not argued that morality is not beneficial to man, merely it is not a physical requirement, and it would have to be in order to have occurred naturally through Darwin's evolution process.

It's not a physical REQUIREMENT. It provide real and tangible physical benefits.

There is no basis in science or nature to conclude otherwise, and unless you can show us something, it really doesn't matter how much you personally disagree with this.

Behaviors can provide physical benefits. It's just prima facie obvious.

Everything we are saying here is speculative, even the notion that mankind 'acquired' morality. It's not "just my speculation" because that fits the presentation you have made, my speculation is based on scientific observation and facts we know and understand to be true regarding nature. YOUR argument is "just your speculation" and you really have NO basis for it.

you're the one making an argument for some kind of assinine SPIRITUALITY.

You're a moron.

Yes you are.

I'm done with you unless you start spewing more idiocy that isn't based in fact, reality, or science, then I will school you again for the whole class to see. As long as you have nothing to throw out there except your invalid opinion, I have won this debate and you have lost. You had better go do some fucking research, moron.

Morality is way of behaving that facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships between all individuals. Denying this truth is infantile.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You added nothing but another post full of self-congratulatory bullshit, so as I said, I am done.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You added nothing but another post full of self-congratulatory bullshit, so as I said, I am done.

I'm glad you finally agree that morality is a way of behaving that facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships between all individuals.

I love typing that. It's just so true, and wonderful and amazing. Finally mankind is free from the dysfunction of religion.

I am God.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm glad you finally agree that morality is a way of behaving that facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships between all individuals.

I love typing that. It's just so true, and wonderful and amazing. Finally mankind is free from the dysfunction of religion.

I am God.

I don't agree. Dysfunction of religion is not the debate, the origin of morality is. You've not presented evidence to support your case, therefore, you lose. Sorry. But, hey, if you want to continue acting like an ass hat zombie, don't let me get in your way, be my guest!!

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I don't agree. Dysfunction of religion is not the debate, the origin of morality is.

Actually. The definition of morality is. "Morality Defined"

You've not presented evidence to support your case, therefore, you lose. Sorry. But, hey, if you want to continue acting like an ass hat zombie, don't let me get in your way, be my guest!!

I have presented evidence to supporty my case, therfore, I win.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually. The definition of morality is. "Morality Defined"


I have presented evidence to supporty my case, therfore, I win.

You've not presented anything that I can see except your pampas egotistical opinion, which is not evidence by any stretch of the imagination. In order to win a debate, you have to present a rational argument for your logic, and you haven't. Everything you have posted defies rational logic, as well as nature and the theories of Darwin himself.

You have also failed to define Morality, insisting the definition is the same as the definition for 'pack mentality', which is not Morality. Mutual cooperation is not Morality, but even that would require initial faith and trust to ever be practiced by an evolving species in nature. You've given us no basis for how it could exist otherwise, and honestly, there is no basis. The aspect of being beneficial to all mankind, is also not a natural attribute. It is not practiced anywhere else in nature except in humans, and is the result of Spirituality and the beliefs or customs thereof.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You've not presented anything that I can see except your pampas egotistical opinion, which is not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

Nope. My definition makes a ton of sense.

In order to win a debate, you have to present a rational argument for your logic, and you haven't.

It is rational. Cooperation works.

Everything you have posted defies rational logic, as well as nature and the theories of Darwin himself.

Not really. You just keep saying that.

You have also failed to define Morality, insisting the definition is the same as the definition for 'pack mentality', which is not Morality.

It's not pack mentality. Pack mentality victimizes outsiders, thus, my morality is slightly different than that, but not totally unrelated, as you continually and idioticaly assert.

Mutual cooperation is not Morality, but even that would require initial faith and trust to ever be practiced by an evolving species in nature.

Yes it is, and no it wouldn't.

You've given us no basis for how it could exist otherwise, and honestly, there is no basis.

It exists, and I have given it.

The aspect of being beneficial to all mankind, is also not a natural attribute. It is not practiced anywhere else in nature except in humans, and is the result of Spirituality and the beliefs or customs thereof.

Very few humans practice what I preach. Most ARE similar to the pack mentality you describe, victimizing outsiders. My genius represents the next stage in human moral evolution.

I rock hard.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nope. My definition makes a ton of sense.

It may make sense to you, but it is not a description of Morality. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt on your description and assume that is a correct definition, it still hasn't been explained how this behavior could have originated without original faith and trust.

It is rational. Cooperation works.

A lot of things work, that doesn't explain how they came to exist. You continue to focus on the benefits of morality, which is not in question. It's obvious mankind benefits from it, but how did moral behavior begin? Man had no natural way of knowing moral behavior would work, it defied the laws of nature. No other living creature practices human morality, because it defies nature and natural selection. Lions and tigers didn't suddenly come to the realization they should enter into social contracts and try to get along, because the theory of natural selection is in play. Something enabled mankind to come to this realization in the beginning, before any benefit had been realized or before it had been proven to work. Faith and trust developed over time, which enabled men to make this rationalization while other creatures didn't.

Not really. You just keep saying that.

No, as I just explained it, in order for Morality to have been rationalized to begin with, mankind first needed faith and trust. There is no logical way to get there otherwise, as human morals defy Darwin's theory of natural selection. The person who just keeps saying things with no basis, is you.

It's not pack mentality. Pack mentality victimizes outsiders, thus, my morality is slightly different than that, but not totally unrelated, as you continually and idioticaly assert.

Right, and when you add the caveat of not victimizing outsiders, this is the basis for all organized religion. Again, in order for mankind to adopt a behavior which defied natural selection, it required some faith and trust. Without faith and trust, there is no way for man to naturally have known morality would or could work, and it simply would never have been attempted.

Yes it is, and no it wouldn't.

No facts, just overblown opinion.... you seem to have this down pat. Sorry AHZ, you can't win debates like this, you have to offer proof, evidence, or at least some half-baked theory as to WHY you make this assertion, and you have failed to do that. Probably because you know you can't.

It exists, and I have given it.

No, you haven't.

Very few humans practice what I preach. Most ARE similar to the pack mentality you describe, victimizing outsiders. My genius represents the next stage in human moral evolution.

I rock hard.

It is interesting how far you will go, and how long you will continue to post, in order to establish you are moral. The real question is not how mankind obtained morality, we understand it was through spirituality and the faith and trust it provided for early man, the question is, why is it so important to an Atheist to be seen as "moral" in the eyes of his fellow man? Is it because you know and understand, morality along with spirituality is the only thing that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom? Since you have abandoned spirituality in any form, you have this need to cling to morality in order to be part of the human species. Perhaps you felt compelled to 'define morality' or REDEFINE morality, because you can't live up to the standards as they currently exist?

You can't live up to your own definition of morality, you constantly attempt to condemn and victimize others, this thread is full of condemnation and victimizing remarks from you, directed at me and people who practice religion. So, you don't even attempt to practice 'morality' as you have defined it! My guess is, because you have no faith and trust, and 'morality' can't exist without it, even a watered-down definition of 'morality'.

In essence, this thread and your behavior here, has proven my point and disproved your own. The more you rant and rave against me and religion, the more you defy your own definition of 'morality' and expose this betrayal to the whole world. You can add your own observed behavior to the mountain of irrefutable evidence I have presented here.

 

[Onceler]

I wonder if Dixie understands what the phrase "I'm done here" means....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I wonder if Dixie understands what the phrase "I'm done here" means....

I wonder if Onceler is capable of reading entire sentences and comprehending context? Probably not, since Onceler doesn't even understand how to put a question mark at the end of his questions. Tell me Oncie, do the have to keep shiny objects away from you?

 

[Onceler]

I wonder if Onceler is capable of reading entire sentences and comprehending context? Probably not, since Onceler doesn't even understand how to put a question mark at the end of his questions. Tell me Oncie, do the have to keep shiny objects away from you?

No question mark necessary, grammar queen. An expression of wonder can be written as a question or statement.

Since you've written "I'm done here" about 3-4 times already, I doubt there is any context that could convince me that you understand what it means.

Stick to the morality thread, though; you'd REALLY take a beating on any of the other, more topical threads being debated right now...