3RU7AL

False. You can actually pretty easily infer if such evidence was false or true. 

Your entire thing about what you can learn from somebody's taxes... it does not equate sovereignty to privacy, it is a red herring.

Do you understand that VIDEO EVIDENCE CAN BE FAKED?

The "evidence" you describe in your initial example is NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

Yes, they can be, but that does mean that they are. In fact, the majority are conclusive, in fact - this is assuming that the video is credible, and the footage would be security.  

No. I think ethical obligation is more important, I would not be so arrogant to assign something the most important.

IF there is conclusive footage of Dwayne stealing, as I supposed, THEN it is something which is PROVEN to be true. That is what a fact is.

I would ask for a demonstration of this principle, if this is the case, there should be hard data for it. I also don't see how this defeats the ethical obligation of not supporting something which is immoral.

...So? What does that matter? Let me shut this down, this is a red herring and has nothing to do with my objection. Privacy does not equate to sovereignty it CAN, but it is NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE, in fact, it is not usually the case. 

You have made a claim, demonstrate it

Neither of these addresses my points, my first point said, "TALK ABOUT IT" as in, you should spread the FACT that this person had done something against the law, regardless of if the action was right or wrong.  Explain what the "Liar's Dividend" is, and why it is relevant.

Because I am not claiming privacy does not matter, I am unconvinced that it is the most important. 

Just because you have the financial reports of somebody's taxes, that does not mean you have control of their finances.

Regardless if people know of my secrets I am still free to choose what I want to do with those things.

IF somebody does a crime, AND that crime is easily proven, THEN you should report it and talk about it

- IF that thing is proven untrue, then take back that claim, and then you have a responsibility to discredit the previous notion, but that is IF AND ONLY IF, that claim has been proven untrue.

demonstrate the claim that "Pricay is the most important".

Do you not know what deduction is? How do you prove somebody had malice of forethought, its the same concept, you seem awfully unfamiliar with case law to be discussing with this much confidence

And more, privacy... isn't the most important thing... what would be more important is to warn people who are supporting that person that it is plausible that that person has done a bad thing... because you usually shouldn't support people who do bad things. I suppose you could make pragmatic arguments against it, but they wouldn't be consistent.

because you usually shouldn't support people who do bad things.

I did.... you have to INTEND to bring down his reputation in order to be charged for Libel or Slander... do you not know how it works? 

the person claiming the thing to be untrue has to demonstrate that it is untrue before the case even be tried.

The entire point of the example would be to point out that there is evidence of such a claim

 In the court of law, the responsibility of the burden of proof falls onto the person bringing it to court.

Does that imply knowledge can be false or it does it mean that the false knowledge was not really knowledge ?

Also, illegal actions such as libel or slander, require INTENT, if you are trying to argue against Donald Trump being criticized, don't because again - a preponderance of the evidence.

Libel - "a published false statement [not necessarily an accusation of crime] that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."

Slander - "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement [not necessarily an accusation of crime] damaging to a person's reputation."

I don't have to agree with the moral correctness of an action  tocapitulate with the demands of a mafia boss because I fear he will break my legs. I also do not have to capitulate. I am still an independent actor. Inserting a god into the role of the mafia boss and replacing the leg breaking with whatever you consider punishment does not in any way resolve these issues. Punishment is immaterial in determining my personal moral intuition REGARDLESS of what I was threatened with and also REGARDLESS of my capitulation under duress. 

How can "objective meaning" be conditional?

Or the one that’s the last man standing,

That’s what I’m asking you, you’re the one asking the nonspecific question.

What do you mean?

Question: IF somebody like; let's use Dwayne Johnson, just as an example; allegedly stole from a store. The video was leaked to the internet somehow and we know pretty reliably that Dwayne stole, would it be illegal to say: "Dwayne Johnson is a thief,"?

"EGO" .....Is your expectancy, that everyone else should know what you are going on about.

the fittest social animals are those that work and cooperate with others the best.

Punishment is immaterial 

Lastly it’s easy to say the person you’ll be under circumstances that you already know but most likely if the hypothetical scenario were true it would be very difficult to maintain your code of conduct because people tend to be products of their environment and if your environment is wilding out then most likely sooner or later you will too because it’s survival of the fittest, kill or be killed and it’s a lot more difficult to care for people that want your head as opposed to people who reciprocate your feelings for them.

According to the hypothetical situation where things that are objectively harmful to all humans like theft, murder and dishonesty are also objectively morally correct I am perfectly happy to be an objectively morally incorrect even if that does make me a monster. I just can't choose to not care about humans. That is not under my control. 

I think if you examine your (subjective personal opinions about) morality you will disagree with any god(s) whose moral pronouncements differ too drastically from your personal moral intuition.

meaningfulness is objective.

I said this ONLY IF we’re rewarded or punished in some capacity, if we’re not then there is no meaning. But if you still want the demonstration if the former were true here it is.

It MEANS if you live this way you’ll be punished and if you live another you’ll be rewarded therefore you should live by the latter.

Feel free to present your own personally preferred definition of NIHILISM at your leisure.

I just want to know why you’re set on redefining the word.

Normally, both participants are expected to present arguments that support their claims.

What claim did make that I didn’t support?

Even if there is some god(s) only I can determine what I personally find meaningful. Even if some higher power has an opinion of the subject I am under no obligation to adopt their standards and in fact will be quite unable to if they disagree with my personal opinion about what has meaning and what that meaning is.

(IFF) NIHILISM = SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)

(IFF) GOD = OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT OMNIPRESENT CREATOR (AND)

(IFF) GOD ALONE DETERMINES OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)

(IFF) GOD DOES NOT MAKE OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY OBVIOUS TO HUMANS (AND)

(IFF) HUMANS SINCERELY DISAGREE ABOUT AXIOLOGY (THEN) ALL HUMANS ARE DE FACTO NIHILISTS

Why use the word nihilism? You’re having to almost redefine it to mean its opposite. 

only I can determine what I personally find meaningful.

Then you’re gonna have to prove that meaning is personal, otherwise you leave me no choice but to reject your argument.

I presented a rigorously defined conditional statement.

In which it exists inside a vacuum. 

Please be slightly more specific.

You created a false dilemma.

personally find meaningful

Meaning isn’t personal.