Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Sure, she makes it sound like the two cases are similar. If I was entirely ignorant to what a hurricane is or what COVID was or what the policies were for each instance, I would think that it was fabulous satire. Unfortunately, I'm not
I asked for the key differences in “the stupidity expressed within the OP” specifically because I knew you or someone else would do exactly what you just did; compare Hurricane responses to the COVID response and pretend that because the two are different, the OP fails. But none of that was the OP’s point.
The key examples I was referring to were;
- Outrage over the government telling its citizens what to do, even when they are purely just recommendations
- Complaining about dominant media coverage and suggesting it as evidence of some larger plot to scare people
- Looking at which groups benefit from the crisis and using that as evidence that they are behind this vague plot
- Asserting that scientists and government officials should not be trusted because they’re scientists and government officials
- The assertion of government tyranny because the government took action in response to a crisis
These are the themes and principals we heard over and over again throughout the pandemic, that’s what the OP was highlighting.
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
- Prop 1: People have the ability to do anything that is logically possible with their body (includes rape/murder).
- Prop 2: People should be prevented from doing some things with their body.
- Would you say both of these propositions are true? If they are, my question becomes, what is the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing under prop 2.
You have the default position backwards.
We don’t start with the presumption that a right to one’s own body is something that needs to be justified, we start with the recognition that we all have a right to our bodies and we take that right away when there is a valid justification.
The mother has the right to her own body, it’s the fetus that is the foreign occupier. Therefore the mother has the right to decide if the fetus remains there. If the fetus could survive outside the mother then one can reasonably argue that abortion is murder. Apart from that the ending of the fetus’s life is the unfortunate effect of the mother exercising her right to bodily autonomy.
Created:
-->
@Shila
So you we’re not able to change sway the audience or change their minds with your debates. That is why you lost!!
Almost no one changes their mind when reading a debate. That’s not the measure of who performed better, which is supposed to be how debates are decided. This is judging 101. Sorry you don’t understand how debates work.
If you stuck to the topic you might have done better in your debates instead of just wanting to continue measuring dicks with your debate record ruler?
WTF are you talking about? Now it just looks like you’re trolling.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Objective means 'not dependent on mindWhich conflicts with the definition “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”
Linking me to an earlier post where you demonstrate that you don’t understand basic English is not an argument.
“Not influenced by personal feelings” does not conflict with “being independent of the mind”. In fact the former is necessarily entailed in the latter;
The shape of the earth is not influenced by personal feelings therefore the shape of the earth is independent of the mind.
It’s basically the same damn thing.
We learned the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in grade school. Who don’t you understand this?
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
if there were a good argument for abortion, I would probably have become pro choice by now
No one is arguing for abortion, the argument is over whether a woman should have the right to her own body.
Why do you need someone to present to you a good argument for that?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
The ONLY stage of gestational development where the fetus can be equates to that of [a] human being is the point of fetal viability.
So you’re pro choice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
How’s the governor’s race lookin like in New York? I’m curious
Then use Google.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Your choices do not make morality objective.Your right, God’s choice does.
A choice is made by a mind, which makes it by definition, subjective.
Created:
-->
@Shila
If insisting that an argument be rational is a reduction to you then you have issues I can’t help you with.I am asking why you lost 2 of the 2 debates you participated in if you are so rational?Is it always because your rational argument is irrational by definition.
I lost both debates according to the subjective opinion of the majority of readers who cast their vote. A vote by the way, which almost exclusively aligned with the beliefs of said individuals coming into the debate.
All of this however is irrelevant to this discussion. I’m not proclaiming myself to be some kind of genius, I’m talking about basic principals of reason that you according to your own arguments reject. Do you have any response to that, or do you just want to continue measuring dicks with our debate record ruler?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Just as I could choose to define goodness differently.But you can’t, the concept of goodness existed long before you but it started with God hence why only He can define it.
You can define morality, just as anyone else can define morality. You chose not to because you have become convinced that God is the arbiter of it. That’s fine for you, it’s not fine for me or anyone else who prefers to think for themselves.
Your choices do not make morality objective.
Created:
-->
@Shila
So you would prefer their arguments be reduced to logical connectives?
An argument that does not connect logically is irrational by definition.
If insisting that an argument be rational is a reduction to you then you have issues I can’t help you with.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Who has the advantage promoting the fear of Putin, Republicans or Democrats?Trump tried to be friendly with Putin, Kim Jung and a host of dictators. And yet he lost 2020.
Democrats aren't against dictators because they're afraid of them. They're against dictators because they epitomize everything this country was founded against.
Republicans used to understand this, and then Trump came along and warped the minds of half the country, which to this day is still his most impressive accomplishment.
Created:
-->
@Shila
So it’s their argument that still fails even though you accept the basic premise of their position.You just need them to argue their case better.
I said I accept their position for the sake of argument.
A -> B -> C
I don't have to accept A as true in order to show you that B does not -> C
Created:
-->
@Shila
But getting elected puts them in positions where they have to answer to the people that helped elect them.Wh6 are Americans working against their own best interests?
It's a cycle.
Republican voters respond to fear and are very easy to trigger, so politicians see an opportunity to further their careers by proclaiming that they will stand up against any threats.
But if there are no threats then there's nothing to stand up against, so republican politician's make them up or just play into made up ones that are gaining steam.
And because the politicians are playing into them, they gain more steam, thus validating the fears of their voters.
And because the fears of these voters are now validated, they go out and vote for any politician standing up against the corresponding threat.
And on it goes...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can choose to follow it as your moral standard if you wanthow exactly can anyone do this ?
I agree it's absurd, but I'm just being charitable for the sake of argument. The point is that even if I accept the basic premise of their position, their argument still fails.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The polls very clearly showed in 2020 that in a hypothetical matchup between Biden and Trump, Biden consistently performed better than any other democratic candidate.
Created:
@Polytheist- Witch
Atheist complain they don't like religion because the morals are black and white but when you talk about the morals not being black and white then they say gods are useless.
If your claim is that morality is purely a product of God, and your knowledge of god comes exclusively from the Bible, then you have put yourself in a position where you cannot solve complex moral problems because the Bible doesn’t address them.
If on the other hand, you accept that morality is based on basic concepts such as well being and/or fairness, and recognize that the arbiter of it from that point is reason, you now can.
The problem with religious morality isn’t about whether it’s black and white, it’s about the self delusion of theists crediting God for every conclusion they themselves came to about matters of right vs wrong.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The Bible defines God’s goodness. That is as objective as morality can get.
The Bible is a book written by men. You can choose to follow it as your moral standard if you want, that doesn’t make your choice objective.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I just can't believe you can be serious by saying Biden was the best person out of millions of eligible Americans to beat Trump.Prove me wrong.
Look at the polls genius.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Exactly. You didn’t determine God was good, you just decided it by choosing to define goodness as that which is in accordance to him.
Just as I could choose to define goodness differently.
This is what we call subjective.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you believe there are no gatekeepers in the DNC that rig the primaries and limit choices? That's a bold claim.
I don’t recall making that claim.
Define “rig the primaries”. Specifically, do you believe that the candidates who receive the most votes get the delegates for their states?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you mean he was the only choice allowed for the voters? I just explained why he was not.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If Biden is the best that American Democracy can offer, then Democracy itself is the big lie.
Democracy is a reflection of the people it governs. The reason Biden was the democratic choice is because he was according to the data, best suited to stop the manbaby republican voters put in office.
Start taking governing seriously and you might start seeing better candidates.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I don't think it is stupidity that keeps Republicans from acknowledging Trump's Big Lie as a lie. I think everybody knows it is a lie.
Not the stupidity of republican politicians, just their voters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the government’s handling of COVID. I for one, live in NY and thought the lockdowns were implemented for too long and the rules were too stringent. During the summer I got on a boat where I was required to keep my mask on on the deck while the winds blowing hats off people’s heads.
That’s very different from rejecting basic principals, like the idea that scientists know what they’re talking about better than Joe Schmoe’s podcast, or that government has a place in ensuring public safety.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Most people who stick around through the hurricane would survive. There are so many people however that even a small percentage of fatalities results in a very high death toll.
Sounds exactly like COVID.
Length of time is a valid concern if we were really comparing the two, but that wasn’t the point of the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And you’ll see 50% of the lefties on here reflexively defending piss poor satire.
How is it piss poor satire? I would love to hear someone explain the key differences between the stupidity expressed within the OP and what we’ve seen from the pro COVID crowd over the past few years.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
If God is the creator of all things good then that means He created morality, it all starts with Him.
How did you determine that anything he created was good? What standard are you using to make that assessment?
Created:
-->
@Shila
You not only disagreed with others view points, you lost both debates.
What is the logical connection I’m supposed to be making between “I disagreed with others” and “other people voted against me”? Please explain how that has anything to do with my inquiry as to why someone engages in debate while refusing to address the points being made.
Created:
-->
@Shila
You disagreed with the view points of two members and lost both debates. So we know why you are here.
Debate votes don’t determine who is right. It’s remarkable that you need that explained to you.
But then again not really when considering the obvious attempt to troll based on this pointless response which completely ignored the point being made.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well I already told you my issue with your “version”, you went on to list three examples of right subjective answers then backpedaled by agreeing there objective under a given pretense, no wonder why you’re a subjectivity advocate because you can’t keep your arguments objectively consistent.
The “given pretense” you are describing is called logic.
Logic begins with a given set of premises. From there, in a deductive argument, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
If A, then B
A
Therefore…
The conclusion to this is not up for debate any more than 2+2=4 is up for debate. In that sense, B is necessarily the conclusion. In other words, it is objectively the conclusion.
But it is only the conclusion if premise one is accepted.
Morality is that which aligns to God.
X aligns to God.
Therefore X is…
Moral or immoral?
The conclusion from these premises is again, not debatable. Changing the word “God” in the above to “well being” does not change the logic of the equation. In other words, it’s objectivity remains in impacted by whatever you plug in at the start.
The fact that the conclusion can be reached objectively however, has nothing to do with whether the statement itself is necessarily true.
When I talk about objectivity being necessarily subjective, I’m talking about from the standpoint of the premises. Where it is objective is from the standpoint of the conclusion from the premises.
This is really basic stuff, so it’s baffling that after all these days/weeks, you still don’t understand it to the point where you have convinced yourself that I’m arguing against myself.
Let’s try this one more time. Slowly.
The standard for morality will always be chosen subjectively, therefore any claim that X is moral/immoral will always ultimately be subjective.
Once a standard is assumed at the outset, X will always be objectively moral/immoral within the framework set by the standard chosen.
Every argument I’ve made in this thread has followed these basic concepts. The only thing inconsistent is your understanding of the conversation you are engaged in.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
LOL, nope, I'm still not playing your puerile game here, I'm simply stating the fact that it's innane to say Atheism "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions".
So in other words; you are making a claim, on a debate site, and then when that claim is directly challenged with a counter argument your response is to dismiss it as a game and restate your original assertion “as fact”.
Why are you here then?
I'm not talking about your little Atheism cult with it's dogmatic beliefs, it's rituals and it's childish burden of proof game
I understand that it must be frustrating to hold a position which you cannot justify. If I held into such a position I’m pretty sure I would hate talking about the burden of proof as well. But it is a real thing that matters in the real world.
What’s ironic is that you claim to be seeking a better understanding of epistemological and ontological questions and yet you avoid one of the most basic concepts within it as if you owed it child support.
I also know what skepticism is, it is not a philosophic system that only applies to Theism, that's just your kiddie game, I'm talking about real world philosophical issues.
I never suggested it only applied to theism. You made that up completely out of thin air, and in doing so demonstrate a remarkable level of close mindedness and confirmation bias.
Again, if you’re not interested in understanding the view points of those who disagree with you then why are you here?
And as far as “real world philosophical issues” goes, skepticism is again, one of the most basic ones. You are not actually seeking the conversation you claim to be seeking.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions". You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.
You’re confusing atheism with skepticism.
Skepticism is the ground on which most atheists deal with questions of ontology and epistemology, atheism is merely the result of this exercise.
“why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?”
Because the evidence does not support the claim.
So in this example, any two individuals who disagree would need to discuss the nature and strength of the evidence in order to determine whether belief is warranted, but even before that they need to find common ground on what type of evidence is needed and what our default position should be in the absence of it.
None of this is atheism. All of this is in the realm of skepticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Um, does anyone else think the OP is nuts?
It’s satirical (sort of). Just replace ‘hurricane’ with ‘COVID’ and you get exactly what the political right has spouting for the past few years.
I say sort of because satire is normally grossly exaggerated for the comic effect. The OP? Not really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Spare me with the "injustice" rhetoric.
My “rhetoric” had nothing to do with injustice. If you actually read and paid attention to the posts you respond to you would know that.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That morality can only make sense of it is objective.That’s not much different from saying my only conception of morality is that which aligns with god.
I have been pointing out for days now how they are completely different.
“Makes sense” is a reference to logic. Logic is the process by which we arrive at conclusions from a given set of premises. The factual accuracy of those premises is irrelevant to logic.
So *if* we start with “morality is that which aligns with god” then morality makes sense as long as we compare actions to god.
*If* we start with “morality is that which aligns with the well being of people” then morality makes sense as long as we consider the results and intentions of peoples actions and compare it to well being.
You don’t need God to make sense out of it, and inserting God as your standard does not make morality itself objective.
Well if you knew what morality was (at least my understanding of it) you would see that your question is redundant in the sense that it already has the answer, morality is the religious path one must follow to achieve eternal bliss, any deviation from that is the literal example of immorality.
I understand your version of it, I’m pointing out that there are plenty other versions out there for one to adopt and apply to their life, which is what makes this subjective.
It also baffles me how you continue to make this argument without seeing the major problem with it. If achieving eternal bliss is what it’s all about then your entire concept of right vs wrong is ultimately derived from a sense of self preservation and enrichment. That’s the complete opposite of what it means to be moral.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
After all this time you have finally made your position clear; your only conception of morality is that which aligns with god.even if we accept this as 100% TRUEhow the heck do we know exactly what god wants us to do?
It’s all nonsense but I don’t even feel the need to go that far since his position on what morality is contradicts his own statement that morality has to be objective to make any sense. Even in his scenario where God is the standard for morality, the fact that god can change his mind makes morality by definition, subjective, which according to him means morality makes no sense.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
What do you think my original statement was?
That morality can only make sense of it is objective.
So first of all, you have yet to explain why god is objectively, the moral standard.I did that already and all you did was reject my reasoning with no explanation as to why
A logically invalid explanation is not an explanation, and I’ve explained why it is invalid multiple times.
Once again, might =/= right. Your argument hinges on the idea that if we don’t obey God’s moral code we will be sent to hell, but the “objective result” of going to hell is irrelevant to the question of whether said repercussions are moral.
This is the exact same thing as arguing that something is wrong because it’s illegal. In that example, according to your logic, the state would be the “objective standard” for morality.
What He can do doesn’t and shouldn’t overrule what He will do, therefore it remains objective.
Whether his word can be overruled is irrelevant to the concept of objectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
This has always been my problem with the white privilege narrative too. I think a lot of it is BS but the parts that are real would be better termed as “black oppression”—like it’s good that bad things aren’t happening to white people even if they shouldn’t be happening to anyone. It’s not a “privilege” to be treated justly. But the language as it stands exists to demoralize whites and drive further division.
The term exists because it spread to the rest of society from those who were on the short end of it.
It’s not a privilege to be treated justly - until you’re the one who is not being treated justly. Privilege is nothing more than a matter of perspective. When you live in a society where your skin color detrimentally impacts your well being - anyone who does not face that same impediment is privileged.
To point that out and have it contorted into a narrative meant to demoralize and drive division demonstrates the most basic disregard for the view point of others.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
My advice for everyone is:Never go to prison.
How about “don’t engage in pedophilia”?
Not suggesting that you deserve to be tortured as you apparently were, but that’s kind of an odd take away given that the reason you were being treated so harshly was because of whatever actions brought you there.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Because it doesn’t matter if two individuals agree on a “moral” standard, if it doesn’t align with God’s then they both will have to deal with the objective result of going to hell
Recall what this conversation is about; it began when you claimed that morality could only make sense of it were objective. I have been responding ever since to point out that not only is that statement wrong, but that morality is inherently subjective.
After all this time you have finally made your position clear; your only conception of morality is that which aligns with god.
This does not support your original statement. Morality is about how we judge right from wrong, and as I’ve pointed out and you apparently agree, we judge by comparing actions to a standard and you believe god to be this standard.
So first of all, you have yet to explain why god is objectively, the moral standard. Even if he does exist and even if we will end up in hell for defying him, all that does is make god a tyrant. The fact that you fear hell is irrelevant to this conversation. Unless you are going to argue “might equals right”, this does nothing to rationally justify accepting him as your moral standard. It is nothing more than self preservation.
You also ignore the fact that if God is an all powerful mind, then he can change his mind so even if you get past my first objection, the fact that he can change what is moral on a whim still makes it subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
After Chicago Mayor Lightfoot chastised Texas Gov. Abbott for sending migrants to Chicago, she then sent several dozen to a suburb without warning:
If the implication here is that Lightfoot (and the political left by extension) is a hypocrite this is a blatant false equivalence.
The criticism of Abbot is that he was sending these migrants without making any prior arrangements with anyone. He was essentially just dumping them and letting the cities figure out what to do with them after they arrived.
The Burr Ridge Mayor found out that migrants were there because he started receiving phone calls and emails informing him that they were staying in a local hotel. In other words, people decided to complain to the mayor because they looked outside and started seeing brown people.
It’s not just that these are different scenarios as Lightfoot actually took care of their well being herself by working with local businesses to ensure they had a place to stay, but worse is the reason why this is being done in the first place. It’s not the bus or the destination that makes this egregious. It’s the intentional use of human beings as political pawns in order to target areas of the country you see as your political opposition that makes this what it is.
These two examples are not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It answers the question completely. Read more carefully.
I have, you did not answer the question in the slightest. I don’t blame you because an absurd insinuation.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Now apply this to moralityIn regards to morality you don’t have to “share” anything the results are what they are period.
What are you talking about?
The word “share” was not written anywhere in my post, so why are you responding to it and why are you putting it in quotations?
And what does “the results are what they are” have to do with anything I just said?
“Apply this to morality” - the “this” being the fact that objectivity can only be determined from the starting point on, but morality requires the individual to choose the starting point making it necessarily subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Cancel culture is a strong motivator for keeping your mouth shut. Hopefully, America's reign of terror will pass as people are distracted with the current recession.
So the medical community is now afraid of acknowledging basic facts about reality that have been learned in college and studied by experts for decades.
The lengths some right wingers will go to to warp their minds around their sacred anti leftist views is astounding.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Making those conclusions objective under that shared starting point
This is the very point I have been explaining to you for days.
From the starting point, we can objectively determine whether something is in accordance with it.
The starting point however, will always be subjective.
Now apply this to morality
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Fortunately for the objective, informed, and generally educated observer this particular copy paste contained a contradiction and thus could be identified as misinformation right away.
This does not address the question in the slightest.
Again, why aren’t Chovin’s attorneys or any attorney out there petitioning the medical community to have the expert witnesses in the Chovin trial arrested for perjury? Why is it that the only people who seem to understand and care about the obvious objective factual errors presented in the trial are right wing internet forum warriors?
It is in fact my attendance of arithmetic (long before puberty) and statistics lectures which allowed me to confidently understand a distribution chart, not my handiness.
Ok cool. So since your arithmetic and statistical skills outweigh a college degree and years of experience in the field, I’ll be sure to call you instead of my doctor the next time I’m feeling ill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
First admit it does not need to be explained in order to conclude that norfentanly is almost always present in overdose victims, then I'll speculate.
Yes, I admit that the former does not need to be explained in order to conclude the latter, because these are two separate conversations.
Your turn.
My DIY passes inspections first times, and his professionals often have to come back. He has spent over a hundred thousand on renovations, I have spent less than twenty for similar levels. I think it is an excellent analogy.
Well that probably explains it. Presuming your portrayals are accurate, you have a skill when it comes to handy work which has given you an over inflated sense of personal abilities that you apply here to toxicology. That bloated sense of superiority has justified in your mind placing yourself on such a pedestal that you don’t just disagree with the findings of those who have spent their lives in the field, but can confidently assert that those who understand the subject and disagree with you are lying in a massive political conspiracy - because that explanation along with the silence of the rest of the scientific field who would know better requires far less assumptions than the possibility that you just might not understand what you concluded based on your Google searches.
Ok bro.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
But objective facts are right, a subjective opinion is neither right or wrong.
You have gotten hopelessly caught up in semantics.
“Right” does not always mean “factually correct”. It has other applications.
An employer terminates an employee after determining the employee’s conduct was counterproductive to the company’s goals. If the determination is accurate, they made “the right move”. There is nothing objective about this decision because the company’s goals are very much subjective.
A dancer in the middle of a choreographed performance performs “the wrong move”. It’s wrong because it is not what was planned with the group. There is nothing objective about the move itself being wrong because the group could have decided the move to be anything they wanted.
A singer sings the wrong note to a song. There is nothing objective about this statement because songs can be sung in any way the singer wants and alternate renditions have been written many times before.
There is no need for any of this to be objective for us to recognize a right or a wrong. All we need is a shared starting point so that we can arrive at the same conclusions together.
This isn’t complicated.
Q1: Is language objective or subjective?It’s an objective way of effectively communicating yes, the mutual understanding of both parties using it is objective proof of this.
The word “way” in this sentence is used synonymously with “method”. To better understand the issue here let’s repeat this sentence by making that substitution;
“It’s an objective [method] of effectively communicating yes…”
There is no such thing as an “objective method”. A method is by definition a product of a thinking mind. Once again, objectivity requires independence from thinking minds. This is a logically incoherent concept.
Created: