3RU7AL

At the very least, everybody cares about themselves, and if you care about yourself, then you ought to care about others. Its that simple.

is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations.

That is using unsound logic, were or were you not reading my posts?

No... they aren't. 

My intentions behind a specific action - something which already happened, and one thought - in contrast, what I'm thinking, is ongoing and changing. You can observe my behavior in the past, before and after the action, you cannot do the same about what I am thinking as I do it. Please stop with these false equivalences. 

We care because we are DNA.

That’s simply not true, not everybody cares.

Mm, our DNA contains evolutionary mutations for surviving, such as cooperation 

You see having a goal to go with a moral premise is an axiom. It is one you accept, I accept, everybody accepts, literally every single moral premise has a "hidden" goal or intention behind it. This is because whenever you make a moral statement you are appealing to some intention or theory of right and wrong, which you can only have if something is the "best" and something is the "worst" that something which is "best" is your goal.

No sir, now that’s not how this works, don’t think your slick and can twist the narrative to suit you. Your claiming that right and wrong exists through goals and I’m saying prove it, that’s not the same as telling you to prove something doesn’t exist.

You are making deliberately obstuse claims, did or did you not read my post above, you know, IF you have complete information, and are using sound logic, using anecdotal examples is not proper 

Umm... what I think? Or my intentions for a specific action? Those are two very different things

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF "SUBJECTIVE MEANING".

But the question as to why we care at all still remains.

Are you talking about sterotypes? Or first impressions, those are made with incomplete information, and often with unsound logic. You are claiming that it is impossible to do or not at all probable, with a preponderance of information and sound logic it is perfectly possible.

Do you believe that people normally act out their intentions?

Are you talking about sterotypes? Or first impressions, those are made with incomplete information, and often with unsound logic. You are claiming that it is impossible to do or not at all probable, with a preponderance of information and sound logic it is perfectly possible.

Do you believe 2+2=4 to be a subjective statement?

So your counter argument is.... sometimes it is possible that your deduction of their intentions can be wrong? That is.... not a good counter argument to say the least. That is true of anything, as RR said. Please sustain something substantial.

Are you trolling? This video is a literal parody of your argument.

Conservatives care about personal responsibility

and small government,

and worldwide freedom(in that order).

Evidence of action is demonstrable.

Evidence of intention is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft

Nonsense, and I sincerely doubt you apply this thinking towards any normal function of your every day life. Imagine your girlfriend tells you she plans to have lunch with her ex boyfriend. She gets ready with a full face of makeup, lingerie, expressive perfume, and leaves the house with condoms in her purse after making a reservation at a motel. Will you really equate deducing her intentions with witchcraft? 

It is apparently SUBJECTIVE because each person VALUES other individuals near them differently than any person VALUES other individuals near them.

But why do we value as a whole is the question you’re not answering.

The term "subjective meaning" is simply a DESCRIPTION of the DEMONSTRABLE FACT.

But demonstrable facts aren’t subjective.

When Joseph was kidnapped and sold into slavery, why was he sold in another country? 

If a slave wanted to become a servant of Jehovah, could he be refused?

If a Hebrew forced someone to be a slave, would that be against the Bible law at the time?

Could a Hebrew purchase as a slave someone who had been kidnapped into slavery?

Was slavery (the American type) condemned in the Bible for anyone, selling or buying?

 If someone wanted to be a slave; only receiving basic amenities in return for total service, then I say all power to them, 

This is wired but I used to fantasize about having slaves that were like 12 inches tall. I always wanted little people slaves. 

Wicker V Filburn allows the government to create indentured servants with the full force of the Army behind them by forcing individual people to produce what the government says you must produce and buy what the government says you must buy. The end of the American Dream.

IF objective meaning cannot be demonstrated BUT humans caring for and about one another can THEN it would seem that humans caring for and about each other IS NOT contingent on objective meaning.

Okay but it’s not contingent on subjective meaning either, and you’ve yet to demonstrate what that even is.

Are you suggesting that it can't be true because it can't be demonstrated?

Ultimately yes

"if you cannot say no, then you do not have a right"

Then why do you keep asking for proof of "subjective morality" (which you define as synonymous with "nihilism")?

Did I? Do you have a quote?

IF we have no way of demonstrating it or assessing it other than through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe

You can’t demonstrate something that’s subjective, that’s why the latter position is nihilism.

it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes.

Which one of TRUMP'S labor nominees do you consider PRO-LABOR?

Any one of them that have created a job is pro-labor.

Are you asking me to "prove a negative"?

Pardon me, how do you prove that should be avoided?

They are functionally and definitionally indistinguishable.

Even if that is true we were talking about zedvictor4’s perspective not mine and he doesn’t have faith BTW.

Please at least attempt to answer the question before brandishing your next vague RED-HERRING.

Ok well then explain why whenever and where ever competition is allowed to exist that the Unionized industries consistently go bankrupt without government subsidies. It's precisely because the Union has both no incentive mechanism for attracting workers that produce more than the communist collectively bargained wage and also no mechanism for penalizing workers that do not produce at the level of the collective wage.

Adam Smith said an economy without incentives is an economy of fiat.

Doesn't organized crime thrive in unregulated markets?

It does thrive when there is nothing to regulate the government once the Constitutional regulations are shredded.

What's your proposed solution to CRONYISM?

Reduce organized crime by reducing the government's ability to interfere with economics as the founding fathers intended.

You don’t have to demonstrate nihilism because it’s a negative position.

Would you call it UNVERIFIABLE MORALITY?

Or perhaps, FAITH-BASED MORALITY?

Those are two opposite things.