Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is the difference between
I don’t even have to give the whole run down I can easily refute this by pointing out the most obvious which is punishment/reward, are you seriously conflating the two? Or are you just gonna gloss over the fact that they’re polar opposites?
IF I qualify my statements by saying "IF" THEN I am not making any absolute statements only following a premise to a conclusion.
But that’s exactly what I did (when I said IF objective morality were true or IF nihilism were true) yet you criticized me anyway.
Why does it matter what it is contingent on or even if it is contingent on anything?
You’re the one that brought up contingency dude I was just answering the call.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So that's a no on explaining how your argument is not circular? Cool I'll just consider it circular then.
You can’t take a quote that’s not mine and expect me to defend it as if it is.
So that's a no on pointing out any structural flaws in my argument? Cool I'll just consider it sound then.
The flaw is you flat out LIED, about my argument and you demonstrating subjectivity.
IF objective meaning cannot be demonstrated BUT humans caring for and about one another can THEN it would seem that humans caring for and about each other IS NOT contingent on objective meaning.
Okay but it’s not contingent on subjective meaning either, and you’ve yet to demonstrate what that even is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I called it a latter position, that’s not an equivalency.
Are you suggesting that it can't be true because it can't be demonstrated?
Ultimately yes but when I first said it I was just denying the claim that it was demonstrated before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm quite certain @zedvictor4 has FAITH in human survival instinct (which is the foundation of human cooperation incentives which is also known as "morality").
Pardon me, that’s not what I thought you meant when you said “faith based”.
Then why do you keep asking for proof of "subjective morality" (which you define as synonymous with "nihilism")?
Did I? Do you have a quote?
People will die and babies will cry but how much and or how little and or for how long and or at what rate has nothing to do with whether or not somebody believes in heaven and or hell
...Okay? I didn’t ask for all that, the fact that you came to that all on your own is telling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you asking me to "prove a negative"?
Pardon me, how do you prove that should be avoided?
They are functionally and definitionally indistinguishable.
Even if that is true we were talking about zedvictor4’s perspective not mine and he doesn’t have faith BTW.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You don’t have to demonstrate nihilism because it’s a negative position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Probably when you (indirectly) suggested the only alternative to your table is NIHILISM.
I addressed that already.
And everybody knows NIHILISM killed a bunch of people and makes babies cry.
How do you prove that shouldn’t happen?
Would you call it UNVERIFIABLE MORALITY?Or perhaps, FAITH-BASED MORALITY?
Those are two opposite things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
in order for our lives to have morality/punishment/reward/meaning we need morality/punished/rewarded/meaning.Please explain the difference between these two statements and how either of them is not a circular reasoning fallacy?
Why? I never said that.
I accept your tautology and continue to be completely disinterested in some god(s) moral dictates and unconvinced that they are useful in understanding WHY something is moral or immoral whether any god(s) exists or not. I feel this is a structural issue with your argument. Please repair this leg.
I said nothing about God or morality in my argument, the fact that you keep finding things that aren’t there is telling.
IF we have no way of demonstrating it or assessing it other than through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe
You can’t demonstrate something that’s subjective, that’s why the latter position is nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope.....I would call it, assumed morality.
Sounds like nihilism to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Person (b) refuses to answer this question
Incorrect, when you asked me what I believe I told you many times and since I’m a nice guy I’ll refresh your memory.
“in order for our lives to have meaning we need to be punished or rewarded in some capacity otherwise it’s fair to question why do we care if the universe is so uncaring, after all aren’t we at our core extensions of the universe?”
Just because it may not be as specific as you would like doesn’t mean I don’t believe it and I don’t know what more you want from me I’ve admitted to not being able to prove God to you and you’ve accepted that yet you still reference that as if you got nothing else to harp on.
even if your table is "perfect" it does not make my table "wrong".
Difference is you have no “table”, you’ve yet to prove meaning WITHOUT reward and/or punishment as a component, another fundamental difference between you and I because at least I’m willing to withhold some of my beliefs for sake of the discussion but you’re still claiming meaning without any proof whatsoever.
Person (b) says, well, it's difficult to describe my table but it is waaaay better than yours, so yours is wrong. I saw a table like your once and it was so dangerous it fell over and killed a bunch of people and made babies cry. (false dichotomy, emotional appeal, bald assertion, strawman, affirming the consequent, and argumentum ad baculum).
I don’t know what you’re referencing to with this, as for the false dichotomy point you’ve yet to prove another possibility until you do the only truth here is either an afterlife or nihilism and don’t get me started on emotional appeal because your whole “well-being” argument is emotional (that’s if there is no afterlife) lastly thanks for that long whatever that was but it didn’t prove a thing making it another waste of your time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It’s not dishonesty if I’m telling you I’m doing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Difference is I didn’t argue (completely) in favor of my beliefs, I have no problem turning the floor over to me as long as you admit your little “well-being” rant was a waste since it lead us here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How do you justify your beliefs without proof (AKA reward/punishment)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No I’m arguing that we’re NOT the same in this regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your missing a key detail here I BELIEVE there’s evidence of morality/punishment/reward/meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
I asked you a yes no question.
I can’t answer with a yes or a no if I don’t agree with the framing of the question, I’ve made that clear already.
I am paraphrasing here but my question was do you care about human welfare.
Except you left out the OPINIONATED aspect of the question, one of our many disagreements you’ve seem to just write off.
You did not say yes and the alternative to caring about human welfare is called sociopathy.
I didn’t say no either.
Also "I don’t think anything worthwhile (if there’s such a thing) is opinionated." Is an opinion.
No, because if it leads to reward and/or avoids punishment then that’s objective proof that it’s worthwhile making it a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
...I stand corrected you don’t know where I’m going, what made you come to that conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I can’t answer a question if I disagree with the framing and something that’s worthwhile is synonymous to REWARDING and I guess you know where I’m going with this after using that term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you of the opinion that promoting human wellbeing is worthwhile?
I don’t think anything worthwhile (if there’s such a thing) is opinionated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is not the issue under discussion
Actually it is, YOU’RE the one that mentioned protection, I’m simply asking how you insist on doing so, if your goal doesn’t have an answer to these questions then it fails to address context and it’s inherently vague.
Do you think human wellbeing is worth promoting?
Only if there’s proof of so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
all human data output is basically subjective.
Whatever, as long as you don’t call that output morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Looking on both sides before you cross the street.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Correction, that’s just how we communicate logic, but there’s many ways to be logical without words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Logic isn’t predicated on whether or not we care, your clutching at straws now zed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
my goal becomes to protect others from the offending individual NOT to punish them.
Well, how do you go about protecting them 🤔?
THEN the most preferable action is to promote wellbeing and then accept the unjust punishment gracefully and courageously.
Prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The valid option Tarik is the availability and variability of words.....As I attempted to point out previously.....But you missed the point, maybe.
What does that have to do with the existence or nonexistence of an afterlife?
Created:
Posted in:
The term 'subject' in 'subjective' is not at all lexically the 'subject' that is used in 'subject to' instead it is the 'subject' in 'test subject'.
That difference was my point all along.
Totally unnecessary to block me, Tarik, however I do not care.
Well you blocked me first I just returned the favor, and if you don’t care then why mention it?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm saying that I never equated that to "subject to" which was the dishonesty.
For the umpteenth time, I never said you did, you’re the one being dishonest here how about you get a quote from me.
Created:
Posted in:
Subjective - “Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence”
Are you seriously going to argue you haven’t used this definition in your arguments?
P.S. let’s not forget the second time you blocked me AFTER I blocked you first but what good does that do if you’re still gonna engage in dialogue with me?
Created:
Posted in:
I... already said that, a couple of posts up
Exactly my point.
I'm waiting for that quote of me now, where is it
You’ve already conceded to the quotes I was referring to.
"Give me a quote with me saying "subject to" in the definition of subjective"
Now you’re just starting a circle because I’ve already responded to this, maybe you should get a quote from me saying what YOU think I’m saying.
Created:
Posted in:
the only time I described what subjective meant was in definitions
Which was exactly what I was talking about, took you long enough.
Created:
Posted in:
The lexicality of 'subject' vs 'object' is to do with what is being done and that nature of the recipient of the act.
Were you even paying attention to what was being discussed?
Created:
Posted in:
Please show me the quote where I used "Subject to" in the definition of subjective, I'm waiting.
I didn’t say that, I said YOU said that “subject to” means subjective which you did, you seriously lack comprehension skills.
Created:
Posted in:
No, in fact, "subject to" is nothing I've ever used in a definition, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make things up Tarik.
No, but you defined the word subjective and according to you and the others that’s synonymous to “subject to” and I have direct quotes proving this so I’d appreciate it if you took the time to understand instead of misconstruing the narrative snowflake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is not necessitated by my goal
It is if one goes against it.
IF there is some objective authority over you you don't HAVE to do anything.
You do in order to avoid punishment.
Fair enough but you might be best served not applying labels at all but instead finding out how people self identify.
I didn’t apply any labels to anyone but myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
your definitions are not really particularly universal.
Well I didn’t think of that definition all on my own, in fact I got it from another user of this site, Theweakeredge provided that definition and he’s just salty I used the definition against him, but jokes on him 😆.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
my goal is not to "make people pay" because I am disinterested in vengeance.
Well I would argue that making people pay and vengeance isn’t necessarily synonymous but regardless of whether or not punishment is your goal, it’s still a repercussion of your goal and that’s noteworthy.
It is also worth noting that a legal system which distributes a minimum of "punishment" would be "more successful"
But is that a reflection of the system or the community?
I think we have to get on as best we can without one
Why? I think if there’s no objective authority over me I don’t HAVE to do anything.
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning not existing REQUIRES that 3ru7al is a nihilist
It doesn’t and I never said as much (you ran with that narrative all on your own) I said that’s what we were discussing just like how we discussed it, discussing something doesn’t make it the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The sentence is evidence that “subject to” doesn’t mean subjective because it had nothing to do with dependent on the mind for existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The possibility of punishment does not in fact appear to stop some people from "preying" on one another.
Exactly, so what do you think will happen once you take that component away?
My goal
Even if I understood and agreed with your goal, how do you prove that your goal is THE goal.
No one involved is a nihilist.
Not the point, that’s what me and 3RU7AL were discussing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You don't know who you can save till you die.
I think you meant to say “try” and in this case you can try all you want people can still prey on your weakness and get the drop on you whenever they get there moment, that wouldn’t happen if you enforce punishment.
Not all consequences are punishments
Well you didn’t give specifics as to how you would deal with the those that go against whatever it is your advocating for.
All human legal systems are just this agreement on a larger scale with more individuals.
Yeah, that’s why democrats and republicans are two peas in a pod. What your not getting is agreement isn’t the issue, the issue is proof and if you can’t prove that we should all agree then the argument is meaningless.
Please be specific about which proposal is flawed and in your critique of it.
Nihilists don’t believe anything is “right”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It appears the two proposals are functionally indistinguishable.
Well one of the proposals you depicted inaccurately so 🤷🏾♂️ .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why? The parenthesis wasn’t for you it was from awhile ago for Theweakeredge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Double_R
Well.. to be fair, havng had conversation with this fellow before, they have an aversion to presenting evidence or accepting it, so that doesn't surprise me
I was subjected to this weather. That sentence has nothing to do with dependent on the mind for existence (so much for “I wouldn't bother”).
How’s that for evidence? Your not going to prove it so I guess I will.
Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
is it enough to say that my goal is to protect society from dangerous individuals and whenever possible to rehabilitate those individuals.
No because it leads me to ask what makes you think everybody can be saved?
disinterested in making people "pay" for their crimes.
Then there would be no CONSEQUENCES plain and simple.
My goal does not change because some people disagree
Well your goal is unclear due to the psycho/socio example I was able to use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's all words Tarik.
Words that have meanings significant to this discussion.
Though...Nihilism if actually a correct deduction, would be positive.
Prove it.
And anyone assuming a nihilistic identity could be regarded as being positively negative, or negatively positive.
I guess I’m not the only one with labels, you gotta few of your own Mr. Positively Negative.
"objective morality" as nothing more than a subjectively concluded supposition
Prove it.
your conflated assertions are a false dichotomy.
Maybe if I’m missing a valid option, which is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How does focusing on punishment rather than on prevention of harm help the problem?
To some punishment is how you prevent the harm, unless you have another suggestion?
I'm not inclined to do that so unless you are that is sort of irrelevant.
Then how are you inclined? Because judging by my example your syllogism has a lot of vague holes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why does a legal system have to have the goal of publishing people? Why can't it be the wellfair of the humans under its jurisdiction (preferably voluntarily)
Because people have their own disagreements regarding the welfare of humans and due to that disagreement they take the law into their own hands, how do you suggest we deal with those people?
They are why I define wellbeing as being for an individual or GROUP of individuals.
That still doesn’t mean much, especially if you interpret it as individual psycho/socio or GROUP of psychos/socios.
Created: