Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Those weren’t my views I was just piggybacking off of what secularmelin said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Subjective morality is subjective morality......Self explanatory as it were.
Apparently not since it’s in question, I mean seriously dude did you really think that was gonna provide me the insight or clarity needed to understand the conflation of those two terms, I mean if your not gonna be helpful then why bother?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I can have opinions about Odyseus for example or about the magic in harry potter.
Difference is despite the fact that those things don’t exist in reality they do exist in the form of storytelling, on the other hand you can’t even begin to explain what subjective morality is so you don’t even have that luxury.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In order to have those you have to prove subjective morality exists which you can’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Personal opinions regarding morality do absolutely exist.
Prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
personal moral intuition
There’s no such thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You see this is exactly why I requested that if you were to bring up past discussions that you quote first because I was worried that you would do exactly what your doing now, and that’s omitting important details to suit your narrative. How convenient is it that you left out an important more preferable (since what I preferred is what you requested) definition that Google provided and that’s (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. My argument was that definition and the definition your now arguing were in conflict with one another for the simple fact that my definition alluded to a mind being necessary, because you can’t consider and represent facts without a keyword MIND.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
First of all don’t put words in my mouth because I never deemed Google as a definitive source, it’s just the source I frequently use. Second if your going to reference things that you thought that I said then the very least you can do is quote what your talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That’s your problem, you always want to act like your so above and beyond everybody else with your wisdom yet you want other people to define words for you, Google is free dude, your such a joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Jesus said to take the beam from our own eye before removing the mote in some else's eye.
Amen to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@fauxlaw
Thanks fauxlaw, secularmerlin is making a complete FOOL of himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is the problem? For a guy that’s so willing to “help” me you seem to lack the ability to answer simple questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I cannot prove it for you.
I never told you too (yet you want to attack my comprehension skills) but it is up to you to prove that I can’t considering that’s what your claiming, you can claim philosophy all you want but by the looks of it you can learn a thing or two from me not the other way around, your such a casual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It’s one thing to be skeptical it’s another to boldly say I’m incapable, and since you’ve claimed the latter it requires proof otherwise it’s a lie period.
Created:
Posted in:
Well unlike you at least I don’t have being banned from DART on my track record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Until then I just won't be able to believe it based on the available evidence.
You don’t have to believe it, but you also don’t have to believe that I can’t. Claiming that I can’t requires evidence which you do not have.
unable or unwilling to understand me when I try to communicate with you.
Are you? Because by the looks of it your just trying to throw over the table by sending false accusations my way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You need to have evidence BEFORE you believe something
And you believe that I can’t evaluate the soundness of an argument, I’m simply asking you based off of what made you come to that conclusion because we’ve spoke in length about more detailed topics than this and the fact that you can’t recall ONE TIME I’ve displayed the accusations you accuse me of is enough to tell me that your lying about all of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I just will do so with the understanding that you are not able to join the discussion effectively.
The only way you can understand that is if you have evidence proving that, which you don’t so enough of your lies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your right I have nothing to be embarrassed about, however you’re a liar and that’s embarrassing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because i do know how to evaluate an arguments structure.
And what PROOF do you have that I don’t? If you have no support for your unwarranted claims then for the purposes of discussion your opponent has every right to dismiss them, did your philosophy textbook put you on to that or that lying as an attempt to get the high ground in an argument is a weak fallacious move? Enough with your filibustering/red herrings, I’ve had it up to here with your pathetic tactics and it’s time I’ve called you out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And how do you know I can’t recognize them? Your grasping at straws here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you are willing to learn how valid arguments are structured you can go back through our correspondence and see for yourself where you either presented an invalid argument or incorrectly evaluated valid arguments as invalid.
That makes no sense, first let’s assume for a second that your right and I don’t know how a valid argument is structured, you sending me on some random goosechase within our past discussions isn’t gonna help me find it. Second as far as I’m concerned I’m not guilty of any of these fallacies your accusing me of so it doesn’t make sense for me to go searching for something that isn’t there, your the one making the claims about me so the BOP is on you to support them, in fact accusing someone of a fallacy when there’s none present is a fallacy in itself “mr philosophy”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's just that you don't actually seem to know the difference at all.
How so? I mean the only way thing I can think of is if I’m guilty of invalid and/or unsound arguments or I’ve committed some logical fallacy I’m not privy too but if you’re gonna be vague and have nothing specific to say then the only thing I can take from that is your just yanking my chain with this philosophy 101 stuff, because although this is the philosophy section of the forums that doesn’t mean we have to discuss it in such a broad context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes but what invalid and/or unsound argument have I made or logical fallacy have I committed that makes you bring all this philosophy 101 stuff up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So why is the difference between valid and sound arguments relevant here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Nowhere in any dictionary I have ever seen is a guide to examining philosophical arguments
No, but it can be used as a guide to understand the meaning of terms such as validity and/or soundness and once you realize that those two terms are fundamentally the same thing you can apply that understanding when examining arguments of any kind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Those words in the context I have been using them do not apply to single words or their definitions but only to the structure (validity) and provable truth value (soundness) of an argument.
...So? You can still know if the structure and provable truth value of an argument is valid/sound through a dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Although I disagree with a lot that you said I was given some clarity in regards to your position so I thank you for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It doesn't even matter if I am using the word "correctly"
What about validly/soundly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In every language the meaning of words evolves and changes over time.
Well unless you can prove that the terms at hand evolved to what your saying it has, the definition in the dictionary still stands.
That is in fact a preposterous idea.
You thinking you can just go against the grain and define words as you wish and be correct is a preposterous idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not even so much rejecting the dictionary
Claiming there’s a difference when the dictionary says there isn’t is literally the definition of rejecting the dictionary, don’t act slow now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Mind telling me about your journey or should I say transition to atheism? Because that’s a huge paradigm shift in thinking and I’ll be interested if you were willing to give some background information (maybe in another forum perhaps) does it have something to do along the lines of your homosexuality and when you realized you were homosexual? Because I guess I can somewhat understand feeling distant from religion if you feel it’s not accepting of who you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I used to be one, who believed in the trifecta god
I don’t remember you ever sharing this with us before, so (I know it’s no longer the case) what made you a believer in the first place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just because some sports star or movie star or rock star is "popular" doesn't mean that it's my personal favorite.
No but if your of the belief that EVERYBODY should be in AGREEMENT in regards to this stars popularity then it’s hypocritical to say that when in the next breath you DISAGREE with them. You see it’s not the DISAGREEMENT that’s the hypocrisy it’s the fact that you preached AGREEMENT and went against just that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Be it as it may your still rejecting a popular group of peoples common usage of a term which is slightly hypocritical considering in the next breath you preach agreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem is contradiction on his part, like how are you gonna argue in favor of agreeing on terms right after rejecting the dictionary that has many terms people agree on (hence why there usage is so popular).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Doesn’t change the fact that you contradicted yourself with your statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is exactly why agreeing on terms is so important.
dictionaries can only describe popular usage.
Well the dictionary has terms that consensus agrees on, I guess that’s why there usage is so popular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And what profit did you see by saying the quote currently in question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Me thinking it over is what lead me to say what I said, how about you explain it to me mister “I don’t mind constantly having to explain myself”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I’m sure you do, doesn’t make my assessment any less valid/sound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Maybe in your “obtuse world” but in reality it’s NOTHING BUT valid/sound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So I mean what I say
Apparently not if what you mean and say doesn’t align with the dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well according to the dictionary “your meaning” is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I find it slightly hypocritical that you refer me to look things up for evidence when clearly evidence means nothing to you in regards to the terms valid/sound (the epitome of ignorance BTW).
Created: