Sidewalker

It amazes me that some Americans are so ignorant that it took Trump for them to realize democracy was all messed up and that entrenched people in DC are the ones that have mattered for 8 decades.

Putting Trump in jail with prove to all Americans they are not above the law.

Trump is going to run because being a prominent Presidential candidate buys him a lot of deference and delay in the courtroom.  Win or lose (almost certainly lose) it helps his legal problems and funding problems big time and Trump does not give a single fuck whether that's good for the GOP or not.  If the GOP doesn't want him, he will certainly run independent. (and if the GOP does want him, Cheney had all but promised to run a spoiler campaign.)   The best thing that could happen to the GOP is the death of Trump.

Likewise, Harris' best shot is if Biden dies in office and soon- giving her a shot at some executive experience before 2024.  I don't think Harris wins a head-to-head against Trump or DeSantis. 

Personally, I prefer moderate technocrats and I like the idea of a Buttigieg/Booker kind of ticket.  

MORALITY is NOT an OBJECT

therefore,

MORALITY cannot be OBJECTIVE

Yep, I get it,  the word objective only applies to objects, and only objects exist. 

only OBJECTS can "exist independently of a mind" (if you consider the definition of "objective")

So you agree with the rest of us that your ideas are NOT FACTUAL.

MORALITY is NOT an OBJECT

therefore,

MORALITY cannot be OBJECTIVE

Not sure about the Democrat, too soon to tell maybe.

That’s a bummer; this is my main curiosity… from anyone who is rooting against the GOP…

As an ex-Republican who left the party because of Trump and what he did to the party, I'd like to see Trump run again, he's turned losing into a lifestyle, I think we can count on him to lose again. 

Odd— you would rather the source of your frustration return to the helm of the party than fade into irrelevancy? You have essentially given up the GOP for dead and write it off as being beyond repair for the rest of your days?

there is a clear and important difference between IDEAS and OBJECTS

No shit.

IDEAS don't "exist" in the same way that OBJECTS "exist"

No shit again.

dragons and unicorns don't "exist" in the same way that cattle "exist"

Once again, maybe ideas don't exist  for you, but they do for the rest of us.

cattle can be empirically measured and are therefore FACTUAL

dragons and unicorns can NOT be empirically measured and are therefore NOT FACTUAL

Just because logic and reason don't exist for you, doesn't mean they don't exist for the rest of us.

there is a clear and important difference between IDEAS and OBJECTS

IDEAS don't "exist" in the same way that OBJECTS "exist"

dragons and unicorns don't "exist" in the same way that cattle "exist"

Trump is often his own worst enemy when it comes to unforced errors. Two questions:

1. What do you think about a President Harris in 2024?

2. Who would be your preferred presidential candidate from both parties in 2024?

Since you cherry picked from my post, can I assume you agree that you are thinking on a thrid grade level?

Let me know when you have something intelligent to say.

in the exact same way you should never have to make a personal judgement about mathematics

everyone should be able to "do the math" and see the exact same answer

What's the square root of 4.  Is two the exact same answer as negative two?

Is non-Euclidean Geometry the exact same thing as Euclidean Geometry? 

(IFF) you agree on the AXIOMS of mathematics (THEN) you can agree on the results of any specific mathematical calculation

(IFF) you agree on the AXIOMS of morality (THEN) you can agree on the results of any specific moral calculation

Only things you can point at exist? 

it's the difference between CONCRETE NOUNS and ABSTRACT NOUNS

Only things you can point at exist?  

Yes, if you cannot point to it in theory, it does not exist. This follows from the definition of “exist”.

Since you cherry picked that one part to disagree with, should I take that to mean that you agree with the rest of the post on what objectivity and subjectivity actually mean?

Keyword JUDGEMENT.

you should never have to make a personal judgement about "objective morality"

in the exact same way you should never have to make a personal judgement about mathematics

everyone should be able to "do the math" and see the exact same answer

how do you "objectively" measure morality ?

With a moral compass.

where can i buy one of these

and where can i get it calibrated ?

Morality is not a part of existent reality. You cannot point to it

We learned this in third grade.

Because of this belief, you speculate she is cheating despite lacking substantial evidence for your claim.

I already posted that I don’t think there was infidelity.

There just are too, far too many fucking UGLY people in this world.

I have ZERO patience for stupid people.

None.

 by choosing to be responsible for how we ought to behave

how do you "objectively" measure morality ?

by the discernment of underlying principles

please provide just a few examples of "moral axioms" ?

• One should always respect the humanity in others
  
• One should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone
  
• Never treat a person as a means to an end.
  

I believe there is real mental or moral causality in the universe, and consequently, there is a moral dimension of reality that exists objectively, rather than subjectively.

Most everyone considers mathematical knowledge to be objective knowledge, and I believe, and can logically argue, that moral knowledge is objective in much the same way that mathematical knowledge is objective.  There are many objective facts that are based on human nature and so I believe that morality is grounded in human nature and is therefore objective, and as mentioned above, I do not believe that one needs to invoke God to make the case.

The caveat being recognition that morality is a matter of human conduct, it's about how human beings "ought" to act, so if by "Objective Morality" we mean morality that would exist independently of human beings, then I think that is a meaningless question. To question objective morality independently of human beings is to pose the question in the context of a reality in which logic, science, morality, reasoning, questions and arguments don’t exist.  The simple objective fact is that human beings experience a reality that includes values, purposes, and meanings. The very idea that these and related concepts such as morality can be evaluated in some kind of contrived context that is independent of human beings is meaningless.

If we understand objective knowledge to be knowledge based on observation of the real world, as is the case with objective scientific or mathematical knowledge, then I think that moral knowledge is also arrived at by observation and can be considered objective.

sounds great

what is your moral equivalent to 1 + 1 = 2 ?

You really have to admire the extreme schadenfreude take on politics today. The remarkably quick regression from hundreds of years of developed enlightened thinking is a case study of the exact society Hobbes predicted in the natural state.

The downward spiral is fascinating like a carnival ride. The excuses for the chest pounding and demonization are legion.  It is a perfect example of a rapid regression into the natural society Hobbes warned us all about. 

If anybody here wants to debate the issue that Morality is Objective,  I'm your Huckleberry.

and I won't be invoking God in my argument.  

please explain

i want to know what is right and what is wrong

By projecting so much your basically claiming to already know.

you're the one claiming morality is "objective"

but still won't bother to define it beyond that

That being said, she's been made into this superhuman caricature that goes beyond her actual shortcomings. When she tweeted an admittedly dumb thing about lasers from the air supposedly causing a wildfire (and to be fair, the technology isn't as farfetched today as it used to be), the media spun it into "Jewish space lasers" out of whole cloth despite no mention whatsoever of Jews. Seeing as they lied about that detail, I can only imagine how many journalistic "embellishments" inform the left's assessment of her.

Gay Parrot has a warped relationship with women. Probably because he has never kissed one and he lives in his mother’s basement.

Nah, Trump don't want no scrub.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrLequ6dUdM

Melanie Trump is not divorcing Trump.

So why is Marjorie Taylor Greene getting divorced after 27 years of marriage? Trump isn’t  available.

Yeah, and that bothers you?

Yes, because it makes your argument appear inconsistent.

So Christians who act immorally aren't Christians?

That question makes no sense, you can’t be something that your not.

How about Muslims, they believe in God, if a Muslim acts morally, are they moral?

I’m no religion expert but some believe that God only acknowledges one religion as correct so there’s that.

Yet, you judge all Atheists as immoral?

That’s because I believe they’re going to hell, I love how you only want to quote The Bible whenever it suits your narrative.

Can you show me where in the Bible you get the idea that morality is a matter of belief?

Psalms 14 and 53, and Rom 3:10–12.

Do you think a Christian is moral because of his faith, no matter what his actions are?

Your actions are a part of what makes a Christian.

I see on your profile that you are a Christian, the Bible says not to judge others others over 40 times, why do you suppose that is?

Because we don’t know what it’s like to be others.

how can we do that if we don't recognize that his belief is to him, what your belief is to you?   

But it’s not, if your referring to the discussion between Double_R and I then I recognize my belief as objective fact and he recognizes his as subjective opinion, we are not the same.

I don't know, but accordoing to the Bible it's not for me to decide.

Although you have no problem deciding that those who reject God are moral

Morality is about behavior and conduct, not about metaphysical beliefs

Can those who don’t believe go to heaven?

If only God can define goodness, how do you account for the fact that most atheists tend to be ethical people of high moral character.

There’s nothing moral about the rejection of God.

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.

The expanding universe was discovered by Hubble.

Did Hubble discover the expanding universe?

In one of the most famous classic papers in the annals of science, Edwin Hubble's 1929 PNAS article on the observed relation between distance and recession velocity of galaxies—the Hubble Law—unveiled the expanding universe and forever changed our understanding of the cosmos

So the expansion was visibly observed by the Hubble Telescope.

Evidence that the Universe was expanding was observed by Edwin Hubble, the Hubble Telescope was launched 60 years later.

So the expansion was visibly observed by the Hubble Telescope.

The expanding universe was discovered by Hubble.

Did Hubble discover the expanding universe?

In one of the most famous classic papers in the annals of science, Edwin Hubble's 1929 PNAS article on the observed relation between distance and recession velocity of galaxies—the Hubble Law—unveiled the expanding universe and forever changed our understanding of the cosmos

So the expansion was visibly observed by the Hubble Telescope.

Your lexographer buddies told you their dictionary definitions are just suggestions, the actual definition of a word is arbitrarily up to the person using the word.  

Monitoring trends in the way people speak and write is a major part of this job. Lexicographers are often required to pay attention to the use of specific words, phrases, and jargon. 

The use of a word or phrase may change over time. When the general population recognizes and accepts this change, a lexicographer may update a dictionary entry to reflect the new use of the word.

For example, the word “awful” was originally used to describe something worthy of awe, such as an inspiring moment. Over the years, the word “awful” took on a negative meaning. [**]

The idea that space is expanding is based on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and backed by Hubble’s observation of Redshift.  The General Theory of Relativity says space has a shape, if it has a shape then it isn’t infinite.   The Standard Model of Cosmology presupposes a Big Bang universe expanding from a point in time and space, because you can’t traverse and infinite either spatially or temporally, both the Standard Model of Cosmology and the General Theory of Relativity explicitly deny the proposition that the universe is infinite. If it was infinite, it couldn’t be expanding, it’s also logically and cognitively inconceivable that an actual infinity could exist.  If an actual infinity did exist we could not confirm it through observation because there would be no way to measure it.  If I did exist, there is no way for us to know it.

For something to have shape it must have dimensions. As such, even a flat surface has shape - by virtue of it having at least one dimension.

There is no contradiction nor shared consensus on whether the universe is infinite or not.

We don't know if there is an issue with infinity. I would wager there isn't as it isn't contradictory to imagine something being infinite. It is perfectly logical to imagine a flat plain going on forever. 0 x 0 also always equals 0. Would you claim there is an issue with that and that we cannot find 0 of something in the real world?

Was it these lexographers that told you a person can only use the definition of a word if the word describes them? 

they did manage to explain

that dictionaries are not "authoritative"

and in order to understand how someone is using a word

you need to ask the speaker

well, i think its best to remember that nothing outside of the universe exists. The universe is everything so nothing exists outside of itself. The expansion of the universe can simply be viewed as the stretching of space. since space is everything, it doesn't stretch into anything but itself, this highlights two propositions (1) the universe is infinite

or (2) laps back on itself. In case 1, it could be described as Somewhat like if we bounce on a trampoline it spreads out and closes back in depending on the force put  upon the trampoline, but the amount of material on the trampoline never increases or decreases. All that increases and decreases is how stretched out whatever is already there is. In this same sense the universe is never stretching or going into anything new, but stretching what is already there, like the trampoline. It may be that space simply is literally bending into itself. 

If the universe is indeed infinite, then the simple answer is that the universe doesn't have anything to expand into. A good analogy can be made with math. Imagine you have a list of numbers, 1,2,3,etc all the way up to infinity. Then you multiply every number in this list by 2, so that you now have 2,4,6 etc all the way up to infinity. The distance between the numbers in your list has "stretched" (it is now 2 instead of 1), but can you really say that the total extent of all your numbers has expanded? probably not, because in the end it all leads to infinity again anyways.  So there is still stretching but you still end up with the same total.

You really don't get the whole definition of words thing?

i know a few lexicographers

and they tell me that 

when compiling a dictionary

they survey editors of prominent magazines and newspapers

in order to convey

"current usage"

do you consider yourself an atheist ?

No.

if you're not an atheist, how do you know what atheists believe ?