Tarik

I will concede everything I have said in this thread, if you provide a single quote from one of your posts after #176 where you have provides a justification of why your original quote was an accurate representation of my argument..

Covered in 176. Obviously you ignored it, as you are incapable of engaging in good faith #185

The bold parts are the parts you quoted: note that they are in the middle of sentences that go on to say more things. Clear and plain as day, you lying, dishonest, quote mining, cretin #186.

You weren’t paraphrasing you were lying #173.

So you are telling me that someone in an argument needs to specifically offer justification and examples of all their claims and statements?

dishonestly quoting me out of context

you accidentally refuted your own position.

Your argument is like calling me a hypocrite for pointing out you’re using a strawman: because I used wikipedia - which contains an articles on strawman.

You’re trying to argue the second - and you know it: which is why you’ve chopped that part out twice. 

you’re refuting your own position #156

they are completely different things being used in completely different contexts for completely different reasons

It appears you’re trying to argue that morality can be changed by personal preference

personal preference is sort of a side note.

In the first I am talking about our moral standard we have as individuals: which is not something WE change

An argument is “a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong

you can’t really call that the “core” of subjective morality, that’s a footnote at best

You took him out of context

moral standard is not something we change

But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing

but it’s the choice, or personal preference in deciding what is moral that I am objecting to.

But, that’s all you do. I’ve been prompting you to explain why for three pages now… at this point; still waiting..

Subjective morality simply means the moral standard you have is learned

You keep saying that; yet you have not once been able to explain why.

Saying different cultures have different moral standards is saying that what different cultures consider right or wrong is different. 

But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing Over time and from society to society

Black knighting #129: oh come on. It’s literally all there. Written repeatedly in all my posts in the last page. Both above and below post 144. This is obscene denial… seriously; you keep saying outrageously false Stuff like this. Who are you saying or for? Not you or me: we both know this claim is ridiculous nonsense: and literally no rational person reading this thread would make that conclusion.

Who on earth said all cultures and societies should be “considered moral”?

different cultures and different times have different moral standards.

Who in earth said morality is consistent? It wasn’t me

If “which is preferable” - the forner: but would be argument from personal preference #125

as I have explained how it could arise, and used that framework to make sense of all sorts of aspects of morality.

subtly different

This is not really a claim: it is an indisputable and undeniable matter of fact.

why is suggesting that morality is subjective; and acknowledging that morality varies in societies and cultures “inconsistent”

so there doesn’t seem to be anything inconsistent there, and it seems to make sense too

It is clear, to any honest, somewhat intelligent individual, that what I’m referring to, is your frankly ridiculous attempt at telling me what a thing I have unilaterally defined means something other than how I define it .

Despite your ridiculous denial of reality, I so all three

[1] The question is irrelevant and need not be answered in the context of the argument: (the context of the argument was that emotion/morality is explainable without a higher authority - which it is: this question doesn’t challenge that explanation (only asks what if its wrong).

I don’t even know how that works!

the initial response and all the posts subsequent to it all make the same argument; and one which you keep ignoring.

I already pointed out the specific issue with it multiple posts ago; you even quoted the part where I pointed out exactly why the main point doesn’t work.

You don’t have to leave to be a good day dir; 

When someone is incapable of arguing, and after exhausting other rhetorical techniques - picks some perceived slight, or issue and then cries “good day, sir” and leave

ignoring everything you don’t like

my response has everything to do with your question about immorality; I explained exactly why over the course of the last dozen posts.

You’re inability to argue here is being treated for what it is - capitulation on the point.

Moving the goalposts is when you demand a particular standard, and then when it is met, demand a different standard.

the only reason to take issue with the question is if your of the belief that immorality is nonexistent that’s why, and if you don’t like my assessment of the answer then feel free to answer it yourself.

I have pointed out exactly why I took issue with this in my previous post: it’s a ridiculous straw man: #85

A good day sir #72, is when someone is completely unable to mount a logical defence of their point; and so makes up for this total failure by blaming some perceived issue or slight for their failure to respond.

Let me walk you through this: I have justified why morality is subjective, and why morality is best explained by evolutionary mechanism rather than a higher authority. You have not challenged any of this, so you have already lost the argument #73.

as nothing about my argument means that immorality doesn’t exist.

so the only way for immorality to not exist; is for morality to be non existent. Basically explaining that we’re both talking about the same thing

You don’t defend the straw man; or your complaint about mismatched terms,  instead you complain about me calling it splitting hairs: to which I point out you have conflated “morality” as in the unifying framework that allows us to determine what is moral and immoral, which is what I’m using - with “morality” as in the collection of actions that are moral - as opposed to “immorality” as in the collection of actions that are immoral - which you clearly did. I’m using one, you’re pretending I’m using the other… of course - you ignore this, and don’t attempt to go back and argue against the original point using my updated characterization, meaning you are now 4/4 having lost that part of the argument #78.

and appear to have completely lost track of wtf you’re talking about.

picks some perceived slight, or issue and then cries “good day, sir” and leave

I need to separate them in my definition so I can explain how and why you’re equivocating.

They are packed together in “morality” - a moral framework. Morality is the framework through which we decide whether things are moral or immoral.

you indeed denied the edit when you said “I don’t know I never said that

I must conclude you are unable to respond to them.

argument by assertion

Denying something is true is assertive

The two parts of this sentence are unrelated as I stated.

I’m not begging the question I’m asking it

I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality you are

don’t be an absurd cretin. Morality and immorality are linked in a moral framework - immorality can only be non existence in the absence of a valid moral framework; if morality doesn’t exist. Stop trying to object for the sake of it.

Saying this: all of this is completely irrelevant

You edited the post. I mean seriously, who are you trying to convince here? 

which you have conceded

denial is not an argument.

Whether or not I am claiming there is “more than one morality” has absolutely no relevance or impact on whether you’re begging the question or not: this is a red herring #37

I am not denying the existence of morality wtf?

How is me arguing that morality is subjective, have anything at all to do with needing an objective standard to determine one morality is right and another is wrong? 

The itself question therefore is really fallacy: begging the question #32. For one morality to be true and another false: there must be an objective standard between them.

All transferred functional data, and all intellectual data acquired and stored since birth.

It is an unequivocal fact that morality changes over time; I pointed this out by talking about morality in different cultures over time

Moral standards change over time

I function relative to my internal database and it's programming.

Given the variation in morality and ethics over time

Using the word success in a sentence twice doesn’t make the conclusion circular.

the survival and reproductive success of an individual member of a social group of animals depends in part  on the success and cohesion of the group.

Circular reasoning is when an argument begins with what it’s trying to end with.

The imperative is simple game theory; the survival and reproductive success of an individual member of a social group of animals depends in part  on the success and cohesion of the group.

I could answer that “whether one ‘cares’ about a group or not is irrelevant - and not part of my argument, and your objection is thus straw man

we have “emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.”

ignored or replaced with another lazy accusation you refuse to defend?

So in this respect, while we don’t need love to survive: the emotion simply helps to promote behaviour that is beneficial to group survival - which is true. 

Or to summarize, we give things meaning because of a complex learned behaviour response mediated by emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.

What you’re doing, is taking ambiguity in the language I’m using and presuming I am talking about something other than what I am - this is splitting hairs.

That’s what I’m talking about - you’re really just splitting hairs here

That which means we function as we do.

We have emotions: and they presumably have some sort of cause.

What you’re sound now, is simply haggling and word play to try and argue a question that is based on assuming a positive claim is not a positive claim

very closely related

No, I have. I covered it pretty well in post 97.

But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?

A.) You’re making a positive claim; that emotion is dependent on a higher authority - then asking me to disprove it by asking me how emotion can work without it.

B.) I did actually explain it a few posts ago…

Asking you to provide justification of why some higher power is required in order for emotional responses to exist is not asking you to “prove a negative”. It’s the opposite.

On what basis do you think having emotions “doesn’t make sense” without a greater authority.

you’re just injecting the necessity as an unfounded assertion in order to be able to assume your own conclusion

Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?