But you’re not keeping the players that played less than 58 games injuries in mind, which leads back to the main argument that it’s an arbitrary delineation in the first place.
“Perhaps if the majority of people were to assign value to something, it would hold greater collective subjective value, but it still does not indicate inherent value.”
With this being said if one wanted to destroy something you valued there’s no convincing argument you can make to stop them because you’ve basically admitted yourself that nothing has inherent value.
“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”
Maybe you should utilize those search engines and look up appeal of emotion fallacy while you’re at it, because this isn’t something I just made up, you’re obliviousness is beyond me.
“Morals can be subjective, representing personal beliefs or values, or they can be collectively subjective, known as ethics, which are moral standards accepted by society as a whole.”
Did it ever occur to you that maybe those standards are accepted by society as a whole because society happens to share the same “emotions”.
“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”
Maybe you should utilize those search engines and look up appeal of emotion fallacy while you’re at it, because this isn’t something I just made up, you’re obliviousness is beyond me.
“Fallacious" refers to an argument or reasoning that is flawed, misleading, or deceptive.”
The flaw in the appeal of emotion fallacy is using emotional appeal to manipulate, for example if someone says to give a child ice cream soon before bedtime because the child will cry if they don’t. Same difference for those who argue in favor of “morality”.
“Different individuals may derive different meanings and emotions from the same piece of art, but there can still be shared understanding and appreciation of the artistic expression.”
None of your examples fit the category of what I meant so let me help you by posing this question, explain to me why rhythm & blues music sounds better than country music.
“If you have a dispute, provide your case with referential proof and set aside your convictions.”
I’ll “refer” back to this quote “Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect.” The mere fact that you replied yes to both my questions contradicts this quote from you, do you need to see the questions again or you’ve got them on lock and key?
“Rather, it is a person's ignorance or misunderstanding of them that can lead to misguided actions, which can make the morals appear fallacious to them.”
There is no understanding necessary in regards to emotions, you either have them or you don’t. The mere fact that you associate morals with a degree of understanding demonstrates the objective nature of it.
“Back to my point, morals are judged by society's overall emotional values.”
Well I don’t know why you insist on using the same tired talking points over and over again, but I addressed all of this already so I assume you have nothing more to add.
“The idea that morality is objective raises many questions, such as how one can know and where is the evidence to support it, while the idea that morality is subjective is already self-evident, as it evolves over time and throughout different cultures and generations.”
You’re starting a circle with this response, so how about I just refer you back to my response and perhaps you can go at this from a different angle https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9238/posts/389380
“To sum up the debate, your argument is that morals are inherent and exist independently of human opinions or societal norms, whereas my argument is that morals are subjective and dependent on emotions and societal norms, and do not exist inherently in reality.”
If it does not exist inherently in reality then it’s fallacious, plain and simple.
“For example, if I have enough money to buy a car and I choose the one I like the best, it may be an emotional choice, but it's still reasonable because it's my money and I can afford it.”
“I believe that you perceive the first and second half of the phrase as exhibiting cognitive dissonance due to your failure to recognize the role of probability in analysis.”
The operative word in that quote is “know” and the certainty lies there, if you’re not certain than you don’t know.
“Although no one can claim to know anything for certain, people spend their lives analyzing everything they know”
Do you fail to notice the cognitive dissonance between the former and the latter half of this? Not everything is a never ending mystery, life is much simpler when there’s closure.
“I encourage you to approach information with a critical mindset and question its validity in order to evolve and adapt your understanding of the world as opposed to accepting commonly held beliefs.”
Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything? Fact of the matter is life isn’t always simple and sometimes all we can do is use our best judgment.
“However, you also acknowledge that there is no way to definitively determine which religious text is correct or valid over another, and therefore we cannot be certain that our interpretation aligns with the true text of God, so it is ultimately inaccessible with certainty.”
I believe it is accessible, unfortunately I don’t know what the correct interpretation is. I’m simply making my claims based on commonly accepted ideas.
But you’re not keeping the players that played less than 58 games injuries in mind, which leads back to the main argument that it’s an arbitrary delineation in the first place.
Except you don’t, if you take the highest totals you don’t need to draw the line anywhere.
My MAIN argument that it was arbitrary you provided no answer for, why 58 why not 57 or 59?
“I hope this helps.”
What does that have to do with my suicide bomber analogy?
“But should you choose to walk alone, without my protection, you will face the perils of a world teeming with malevolence.”
Suicide bombers have no intention of facing anything, so I would say in a case like that no it’s not a good reason.
“Perhaps if the majority of people were to assign value to something, it would hold greater collective subjective value, but it still does not indicate inherent value.”
With this being said if one wanted to destroy something you valued there’s no convincing argument you can make to stop them because you’ve basically admitted yourself that nothing has inherent value.
“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”
Maybe you should utilize those search engines and look up appeal of emotion fallacy while you’re at it, because this isn’t something I just made up, you’re obliviousness is beyond me.
“I entirely agree.”
Then what is nihilism?
“Morals can be subjective, representing personal beliefs or values, or they can be collectively subjective, known as ethics, which are moral standards accepted by society as a whole.”
Did it ever occur to you that maybe those standards are accepted by society as a whole because society happens to share the same “emotions”.
“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”
Maybe you should utilize those search engines and look up appeal of emotion fallacy while you’re at it, because this isn’t something I just made up, you’re obliviousness is beyond me.
“Fallacious" refers to an argument or reasoning that is flawed, misleading, or deceptive.”
The flaw in the appeal of emotion fallacy is using emotional appeal to manipulate, for example if someone says to give a child ice cream soon before bedtime because the child will cry if they don’t. Same difference for those who argue in favor of “morality”.
“Different individuals may derive different meanings and emotions from the same piece of art, but there can still be shared understanding and appreciation of the artistic expression.”
None of your examples fit the category of what I meant so let me help you by posing this question, explain to me why rhythm & blues music sounds better than country music.
“It can be likened to someone using a similar logic to claim, "cows are white, and we consume cows, so we only consume white things."
So what subjective thing other than “morality” is understood?
“If you have any concerns or objections, please clearly state your case without implicit implications.”
Is objective synonymous with just?
“If you have a dispute, provide your case with referential proof and set aside your convictions.”
I’ll “refer” back to this quote “Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect.” The mere fact that you replied yes to both my questions contradicts this quote from you, do you need to see the questions again or you’ve got them on lock and key?
“You're correct, the simplified conclusion remains that facts are objective, while opinions are subjective.”
Do you understand facts?
“Facts provide objective information about the world and can be supported by evidence.”
So in other shorter and simpler words the answer is yes.
“Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect.”
Are facts objective? Do you understand facts?
“Objectivity refers to the consistency among all individuals, not simply whether something can be understood.”
Individuals can all be consistently wrong, there’s nothing objective about that.
“Rather, it is a person's ignorance or misunderstanding of them that can lead to misguided actions, which can make the morals appear fallacious to them.”
There is no understanding necessary in regards to emotions, you either have them or you don’t. The mere fact that you associate morals with a degree of understanding demonstrates the objective nature of it.
“Why do you not believe that values are emotionally based?”
Because arguing in favor of those values would be inherently fallacious, but I’ve told you this. So why ask if I said this already before?
“Back to my point, morals are judged by society's overall emotional values.”
Well I don’t know why you insist on using the same tired talking points over and over again, but I addressed all of this already so I assume you have nothing more to add.
“The idea that morality is objective raises many questions, such as how one can know and where is the evidence to support it, while the idea that morality is subjective is already self-evident, as it evolves over time and throughout different cultures and generations.”
You’re starting a circle with this response, so how about I just refer you back to my response and perhaps you can go at this from a different angle https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9238/posts/389380
“However, if an individual has a firm grasp of what constitutes a moral, it would not be considered fallacious to them.”
I guess that begs the question, how does one know they have a firm grasp?
“To sum up the debate, your argument is that morals are inherent and exist independently of human opinions or societal norms, whereas my argument is that morals are subjective and dependent on emotions and societal norms, and do not exist inherently in reality.”
If it does not exist inherently in reality then it’s fallacious, plain and simple.
“For example, if I have enough money to buy a car and I choose the one I like the best, it may be an emotional choice, but it's still reasonable because it's my money and I can afford it.”
That’s not an argument though.
“While logical justification can reinforce an emotional judgment or moral, the moral itself is not logical but rather emotionally driven.”
By that “logic” moral arguments are fallacious by nature.
“Additionally, I argued that morals are rooted in emotion, and that an individual without emotions would have no morals but possibly have principles.”
Is it sole emotion or do you believe there’s logical justification for morality?
“I believe that understanding this topic is crucial, but I recognize that this debate commentary may not be the appropriate space to delve deeper.”
It was never my intention to stray this far off topic, originally we were discussing morality.
“I see your point, but I interpret 'understanding' as being aware of something, rather than necessarily knowing it.”
And what’s the difference between being aware and knowing?
"A person should act as though their best understanding is known but acknowledge it's only the best interpretation of the world they have currently".
That’s literally what understanding is, knowing. Anyway do you think we’ve stressed this tangent long enough?
“It is possible for someone to think they know something, but it turns out to be incorrect.”
Then they don’t know it, plain and simple.
“I believe that you perceive the first and second half of the phrase as exhibiting cognitive dissonance due to your failure to recognize the role of probability in analysis.”
The operative word in that quote is “know” and the certainty lies there, if you’re not certain than you don’t know.
“Although no one can claim to know anything for certain, people spend their lives analyzing everything they know”
Do you fail to notice the cognitive dissonance between the former and the latter half of this? Not everything is a never ending mystery, life is much simpler when there’s closure.
“I based my response on the assumption that this was the question.”
It was, but that response just stresses the importance of critical thinking not how one obtains valuable information.
That doesn’t answer the question.
“I encourage you to approach information with a critical mindset and question its validity in order to evolve and adapt your understanding of the world as opposed to accepting commonly held beliefs.”
Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything? Fact of the matter is life isn’t always simple and sometimes all we can do is use our best judgment.
“However, you also acknowledge that there is no way to definitively determine which religious text is correct or valid over another, and therefore we cannot be certain that our interpretation aligns with the true text of God, so it is ultimately inaccessible with certainty.”
I believe it is accessible, unfortunately I don’t know what the correct interpretation is. I’m simply making my claims based on commonly accepted ideas.
“One could suggest that society's vote determines which religious text is ethical, but that is just another form of collective subjectivity.”
I guess that depends on whether or not that vote aligns with God’s.