Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How so? Is this the "because your good and my good will never match, therefore what HItler did was fine because he thought it was" straw man?
How is it a straw man? Unless you and I have different views pertaining to subjective morality, care to explain yours?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What exactly is your objection to an entirely subjective view of morality or good?
The fact that the concept of it makes no sense at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It was at one time viewed as moral to sell your duaghter into se slavery, in the Old TEstament.
Your conflating two separate things here, in this case how something is viewed is separate from what something is and sex slavery is immoral regardless of how it was viewed once upon a time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It should go as a lesson to many teams that forming superteams by trading away your key role players is a short term goal with very little payoff if things end up not going well
Your preaching to the choir everybody knows that if your best players are injured it’s more difficult to win doesn’t make the trade for Harden a mistake just like the signing for KD for the Warriors wasn’t a mistake sure they lost to the Raptors in there last go round but you can’t ignore the previous two years when they were together, it was literally game over for the rest of the league, why? Because of the signing of KD and who knows the trade for Harden may pay off this upcoming season.
The Suns series between them was already 2-2 and was already close even without injury
Bron and Brow were compromised before the playoffs (even play-in) started and they had a 2-1 lead on the Suns in the game AD got hurt so that’s simply not true.
How come when Giannis went down against the Hawks in game 5 or 6, the Bucks still won? It's because the Bucks aren't front heavy and have depth at every position and when the time is needed, they step up.
Also because the Hawks ain’t the Nets, if Giannis went down against the Nets like he did the Hawks KD would’ve destroyed that Bucks team even worse like he did in game 5 even in game 7 if his foot was slightly further back that shot he hit would’ve won the game.
They didn't have the big name starts
My point exactly yet you take this to mean I’m undervaluing the Bucks roster.
Even if a team is bad (such as my Bulls), they will still be relevant due to their history)
Relevancy is about the present not the historic past, I provided context for a reason. In terms of what have you done lately the Lakers (and the Bulls because you brought them up) haven’t been relevant in the winning department in the time periods between Kobe’s departure and AD’s arrival.
They know how to attract talent because they can throw lumps of money at big stars because they're a big market team.
And because LA’s nicer then most areas (Chicago included).
We wait. I don't think that Nets team is stable for a whole season
Even when healthy why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Injuries are a part of the game and a great team with depth can lose it's players and still perform well.
Yeah the same way luck is a part of the game, and apparently the Nets don’t have that kind of depth because they traded it all away to stay top heavy (which backfired against them because of the injuries to Kyrie and a compromised beard) as for performing well the only real performer for the Nets was KD and even he couldn’t carry that load by himself, maybe prime LeBron could but KD ain’t that dude.
Teams like the Lakers and Nets stand no chance in the league for the future.
I said nothing about the Lakers but since you wanna bring them up then the only reason they weren’t in the finals was the same reason as the Nets, injuries. And must I remind you Bucks were getting blown out down 2-0 before Kyrie got hurt and they lost game 5 (a game they should’ve won BTW), so if a healthy Lakers and Nets squad stand no chance in the league for the future that couldn’t be any more true for that lucky Bucks squad. Also put some respect on the Lakers Bron and AD literally made that franchise relevant again after a long playoff drought in one of the most difficult time periods (considering the aftermath of Kobe and the pandemic) so don’t give me don’t stand a chance because one thing about the Lakers organization is they know how to attract talent so who knows what free agents they pick up or what trades they pull off (I mean they got AD didn’t they and look how that turned out championship).
Versatile teams with inked in stars are teams that can go the distance.
If we’re talking next year then the Bucks don’t fit that criteria they got lucky this year plain and simple, although I do respect Giannis performance in these playoffs he deserves it but his team is not better than a healthy Nets team.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Blasphemy, Giannis got lucky, not to take anything away from him because he’s a great player but he’s not even the best in the game that’s KD who would’ve been finals MVP if Kyrie didn’t get hurt and the beard was 100% and this is coming from a Knicks fan.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Schools should say that it's OKAY to be these things
No, the schools job is to teach not say anti LGBTQ’s are bad people, miss me with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Coming from the guy that contradicted himself many times lol, but since “Theweakeredge is right” and all does that mean your little back and forth has come to an end?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because it got back to the point we were discussing?
Well in that case I guess it does matter huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
what you don't understand is that this is a continued conversations
What you don’t understand is I don’t care about your previous conversations fact of the matter is mentioning the humanity of the fetus was not necessary in your response that I pointed out therefore you did it on your own period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, you simply don't know what you're talking about I said nothing about your “PMs and on other chats” I was solely talking about the one post you responded to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Whether or not it was random is besides the point, fact of the matter is it “mattered” enough to garner a response from you which by the way Benjamin never said anything in regards to the humanity of the fetus, you brought that up on your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
prove that it matters
If it doesn’t matter then why mention it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Fetuses have no value almost half the time, because half the time they don't even develop into humans.
Human life begins at conception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Therefore, a moment can never be valuable by itself.
Yet you choose to highlight a moment in our life for your argument, I mean is the fetal period a moment in our life or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
What baffles me is you don’t believe the unborn have current value, out of curiosity at what point in our life do we become valuable?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, no human no fact.
How many times do you have to say this tired argument and how many times does it have to be refuted for you to get it? PGA2.0 gave a a very well thorough argument explaining this yet you ignored all of it just to go back to the beginning where no progress can be made? Your presenting yourself to be a troll at this point.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
That doesn’t answer my question.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Then what is the something?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Let me break this down for you.
Things are, irrespective of a viewer.
This means facts exist regardless of whether or not a viewer is there to witness them.
No viewer....Things...But no facts.
This means the total opposite of that, therefore your two quotes make no sense and have nothing to do with logic, carry on.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
What did I concede to?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Things are, irrespective of a viewer.
No viewer....Things...But no facts.
These two quotes are mutually exclusive.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though, without your ability to perceive and communicate, you would have no facts.
Not true, facts existence isn’t predicated on our ability to communicate them.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Reality is reality....And facts are facts.
This is true regardless of one’s ability to communicate.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
That’s not true, it’s only just that, no perception.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What part of perception is irrelevant don’t you understand?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Reality is reality....And facts are facts.
Which is true regardless of perception, so perception is irrelevant.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Everything in ones life is predicated on ones decisions....Or more precisely, on how one processes data.
How one processes data wasn’t my argument, my argument is was in regards to the facts of the world irrespective of how one processes it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
But not everything in life is predicated on ones decisions, so what do you call those things because they’re damn sure not subjective.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore irrespective of content
No not irrespective of content, content matters especially when your comparing two things that are polar opposites.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
As defined....Influenced by personal tastes, feelings or opinions.
You do realize objective has a completely opposite definition, so I’m not so keen that you
understand the semantic differentiation
Like you say you do.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
No, I’m saying that logic and reason is the ONLY data management process.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Separate from what?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
How do you know theirs another data management external from logic and reason?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Logic and reason.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
data out
Last time that I checked out meant external.
But Tarik says that, his source of objectivity is separate from internal function and process
Correction I said
There’s nothing internal about objectivity.
Which is bigger than just me.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
A tad vague perhaps.
As is your line of questioning, what do you mean by source of objectivity?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
External from myself, yet not in a specific place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
If can't even tell me why you chose to do what you did, then how can you say that you "commanded" it.
Because knowing why has no bearing on the command itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Because what your willing to choose and your reason as to why you chose it are two separate narratives regardless of your eagerness to conflate the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If your "willingness" is caused, then it is not "free".
It is if it’s caused by you.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
All internal
There’s nothing internal about objectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Your right at first I didn’t but I did now and it doesn’t change a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The first thing to note is that you only "chose" it because it occurred to you.
And because I was WILLING to choose it.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
is objective morality distinct from morality?
I wouldn’t say so.
It seems absurd to me that we should think chocolate ice cream is not really ice cream...or that any 'flavor' of morality is not morality.
I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
FREE-WILL IS LOGICALLY INCOHERENT
Prove it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You prove it yourself, every time that you produce a response to a debateart stimulus.
That doesn’t mean objectivity is always subjective, you clearly don’t know what those two terms mean.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
No: see below. Defining what it means for the light to be on does not admit that the light is not on.
…Okay? But I never said anything remotely close to that.
Also light bulbs are made of glass - and morality isn’t! So that’s a difference too!
…Okay? But you never compared those two things.
The difference is not relevant to the analogy
On the contrary, the difference is why the analogy doesn’t work in the first place.
And this is specifically relevant how.
…Because it’s responsive to something that you said?
I’m specifically referring to your interesting argument where to try and keep up the pretence that you are correct, you pretend that you are unable to distinguish a thing, and a thing with a given state: your apparent confusion that a fast helicopter is not a helicopter or light that is turned on is not a light.
No, I’m unable to distinguish a thing if the given state is what makes up that thing, a helicopter is still a helicopter regardless of the fast label you attach to it just as much as a light is still a light regardless of whether or not it’s on or off, however if I were to try and keep up with the pretense that you are correct in regards to morality’s subjective nature then morality can’t be morality without the subjective label attached to it because that’s what makes morality what it is.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions.
Well if it’s solely based off of that then it’s not a truth, truths are based off of hard objective facts.
Created: