Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I never said subjective meaning exists you did, so you prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You tell me, your the one arguing in favor of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
We resolve the issue by you proving your definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You can simply say what you intend you don’t have to mislabel it by calling it subjective meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I never told you not to use the words nihilism, moral, or principles unless you have a direct quote from me than that’s just another flat out lie not worthy of being paid any attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What are you referencing to specifically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I would ask for specifics as to what you don’t understand, or what term you disagree with then we can debate the proper use of the term which can be easily resolved through the reference of a dictionary. Rephrasing my argument isn’t the solution the solution is getting you to understand my argument as it is, because in that case any troll can play dumb and request rephrasing to no end and I’m not falling for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You can't remember exactly what you said either huh?
No, I remember I can post it again if you like but make no mistake I have no use for your premise and conclusion, unless it’s in regards to your own arguments I’m very capable of speaking for myself I don’t need you speaking for me, modifying, or tweaking anything. Have I made myself clear?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well maybe you should be concerned with both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have legitimate concerns with your logical structure
Why? You never give specifics as to what it is that confuses you, you accuse me of being pedantic yet you want to make your changes and argue that they’re based on mine, your the one that’s pedantic.
Also if you see no difference between both arguments then you wouldn’t feel the need to add the extra variables so take my argument as it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You can break it down word by word if that’s what it takes, Google is free if you don’t know what one of the words mean the dictionary is available to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What’s wrong with the direct quote? Why don’t you understand it as it is? I’ve had it up to here with you adding extra variables to elementary stuff, I don’t know if it’s to throw me off or what but I’m not having it anymore, so if you want to take this discussion to the next level then let me know by cutting out the bs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You try to break them with logic and science and whatever is proven wrong or unfalsifiable is dismissed as likely untrue.
You didn’t break anything with logic and science instead you ran with your own narrative and claim it’s based on mine (which it isn’t).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Instead of accepting my premise and conclusion at face value you run with your own and claim it’s based on mine (which it isn’t) that’s what’s wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Unless you have a direct quote from me then I don’t want to hear it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What logically inconsistent ideas does MY ACTUAL WORDS convey?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In order to evaluate your premise and conclusion for logical inconsistency.
What’s logically inconsistent about MY ACTUAL WORDS?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I’m not even gonna address that, I’ve made my argument clear an abundance of times and I refuse to engage in whatever bs game you want to play.
You don't have to say it if it is a logical necessity granting what you did say.
Prove this claim, otherwise don’t waste my time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You don't have to say it if it is a logical necessity granting what you did say.
But it’s not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Following YOUR syllogism to its logical conclusion is NOT lying.
YOU saying “whether or not” is not following my conclusion because I never said or implied anything remotely close, therefore by definition it’s a lie period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Whether or not in my syllogism, saying I said so is a flat out lie period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In order to evaluate your premise and conclusion for logical inconsistency.
And how does flat out lying on my behalf accomplish that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
But that doesn’t mean the conclusion is always the same which in this case YOU’RE saying it is I didn’t nor did I ever and lastly.
Then my first premise and conclusion BASED on YOUR argument.
Why do you need such a thing after I already provided you MY premise and conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
conclusion BASED on YOUR argument.
That isn’t based on my argument because I never argued the “whether” proposition, I did however argue the “OR NOT” proposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What are you talking about? Like seriously.
This argument
THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Any argument that we shouldn't care, whether meaning exists or not, is self defeating.
Then why’d you make it smart guy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why are you even acknowledging it existing as an option? I’m not arguing in favor of it existing and neither are you so I’m not even gonna go there (which should be a sigh of relief for you since you don’t believe and all) for arguments sake. So in other words the “OR NOT” caveat to your syllogism is the only proposition I’m concerned with in regards to this discussion because it aligns with my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then why’d you say
THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
Although I don’t completely agree with this quote I do under the circumstances IF objective meaning doesn’t exist and considering I was arguing in favor of the nihilist position and nihilists don’t believe objective meaning exists that means as far as this discussion is concerned we’re in agreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Long yes but strange no, you’ve finally seen the light the moment you conceded and there’s nothing strange about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
is not silly to have a survival instinct
...No, you conceded and said
THEN having that desire makes no sense
The argument I’ve been making all along, I very well understand English don’t play games with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no objection, you conceded, we’re good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
All those extra words just to basically say the same thing 🥱.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't actually concede that it makes no sense.
This quote begs to differ.
THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
but either way if your conceding that desire makes no sense regardless then that was my argument from the very beginning (I guess we’ve finally come full circle) and there’s really nothing more for me to say, I rest my case.
So I guess I’m not the only one guilty of this
If you examine two out of six legs from my table as though the other four don't exist then sure it doesn't logically follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
That doesn’t logically follow but either way if your conceding that desire makes no sense regardless then that was my argument from the very beginning (I guess we’ve finally come full circle) and there’s really nothing more for me to say, I rest my case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You don't need a larger justification in order to struggle to stay alive.
When did I ever argue against that? If that’s your only argument going forward than all I can say to that is duh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't really have any problems with observing my syllogism based on nothing more than my desire to stay alive
The problem is if you can’t objectively prove your life is meaningful then it makes no sense to have that desire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then why should I even pay attention to this syllogism if it’s not applicable to nihilism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF you care
And what IF you don’t, then what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Great well in that case I guess I can return the question you’ve been asking me back to you, how do I become objectively moral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is my table. It has eight legs. Let me know if you see any problems.
No I don’t see any problems with what if propositions because there limitless in making anything a possibility (in this case your limit is eight) even fallacies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF you are alive and IF you care to continue doing so THEN you ought to engage in self care.
But under nihilism you shouldn’t care, that’s my point.
Created: