Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Where in my statement do I say that?
I came to that conclusion on my own, simply because if everything was legal nobody would have to pay for anything they’ve done which is what you seem to be in favor of.
The sum total of the physical and mental health of any individual human or group of humans in so much as we can assess it.
So what about the physical/mental health of a psycho/socio I’m sure what stimulates their health is a lot different from you but you didn’t have them in mind when you made your syllogism did you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't agree with a system which is primarily concerned with "making people pay for their crimes".
So we should just legalize everything then?
If you understand what I mean then I have communicated an idea. Using the "right" word is of secondary importance
So define the term right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Humans can and do hold humans accountable.
But you were referred to them as systems, I assume you meant along the lines of a justice system, do you support having such a thing yes or no?
Whether there is some "consensus" or not however that consensus cannot tell me what I think.
No, but you can’t label that thought as well-being because there’s no consensus on the meaning of that term.
Created:
Posted in:
I stopped interacting with Tarik, whatever the validity of their claims, I find literally no progress being made by talking to them.
Yeah, that’s why you continued to @ me after I blocked you right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well whatever else is happening I think you must be reading far more into my argument than there actually is.
How so?
We don't have to give up on communication altogether just because languages evolve and definitions are mutable.
No we don’t, but at the very least we can use standards where there’s a consensus around a definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
you really don't have the right to question mine.
I do on the grounds that your opting to argue yours.
I don't believe in any god(s) because they haven't been demonstrated and you are not even arguing that one could be.
Then what’s the point of saying that?
you haven't really explained exactly what I need to justify
You can start by answering this question straight up instead of attacking views I’m not even arguing.
How do you know that’s an example of well-being when there’s no consensus around a definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
With some degree of confidence greater than my confidence in some higher power or intrinsic meaning.
If I argued in favor of either (which I didn’t) that comparison would’ve been fair but that hasn’t been my argument over the course of this discussion, so don’t use me to avoid answering the tough questions.
If you don't like the impression of god I have gotten from your posts (that of some cosmic hall monitor who spanks the guilty) perhaps you should reevaluate how you discuss the matter.
But I’m not discussing the matter so I would appreciate it if you refrain from your sarcastic assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I cannot explain why human wellbeing is important beyond the fact that I am human and I am important to myself and by extension other humans take on value.
How do you know that’s an example of well-being when there’s no consensus around a definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That’s a pretty vague standard considering there’s no consensus around a single definition of well-being, harm is also just as controversial considering not everyone agrees on what is and isn’t objectively harmful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
THEN there is no reason to maintain any moral standard at all
That’s what I’ve been saying, yet you still have your “standards” you live by that baffles me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And you don't see how that position might be construed as being very selfish?
So? What proof do you have that I shouldn’t be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
don't have any observable reason to care
But I said that already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So IF we don't know why humans care about things SHOULD we stop caring about things (assuming we even can stop)?
If there’s no afterlife I would say so, no reason to care is enough reason not to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Calling an emotion logically necessary is an ought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
is a logical necessity more than a goal.
Aren’t you among the ones that agreed with the premise you can’t derive an ought from an is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In as much as survival is in fact a goal at all I present this syllogism.
But death is also a goal, and what if you have no goals in regards to life or death?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
But do we need air, food, or sleep? Or it only seems that way because survivals your goal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Everything’s a choice the why’s of them all is the interesting part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
But you do choose to interact with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I didn't choose to care
Yes you do, if you saw no value in human life you wouldn’t care for them period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is an observation not an argument.
It’s more than just an observation if YOU AGREE with said systems.
what I don't support
We’re literally discussing YOU SUPPORTING “systems of accountability” meaning
In favor of, agree with, stand for, I mean what else could it mean?
I said all this before did you just write it off? That’s the narrative here you don’t have to support such a thing YOU CHOOSE to and I’m asking why? You’re refusal to answer the call is why I gave my voting example because it’s a representation of ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And I already told you that nihilism was a negative position (if objective morality is false).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And if it can't, it cant
Then why are you asking me to prove nihilism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't really understand what your objection is
There’s no way you can be this obtuse.
If you don’t know why then supporting such a thing is by definition ignorance, it’s like voting for a candidate without knowing what they stand for.
This is my objection, repeatedly saying you don’t know just reinforces it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No system is an alternative and it doesn’t require an answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Even if why is important it is unattainable.
But it is attainable otherwise it wouldn’t exist, man created the systems that your advocating for at the end of the day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I said the answer already, I guess you just wrote it off.
If you don’t know why then supporting such a thing is by definition ignorance, it’s like voting for a candidate without knowing what they stand for.
What do you mean by support?
In favor of, agree with, stand for, I mean what else could it mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why do I need to know why I care about some things in order to care about them?Because the whys of it all matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Let's say I don't know why humans make systems of accountability.
If you don’t know why then supporting such a thing is by definition ignorance, it’s like voting for a candidate without knowing what they stand for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Let's say I have no answer at all.
But you are proposing an answer (human systems of accountability whatever that is) you just want to put your own label on it to avoid answering the tough questions but a label doesn’t shy you away from that assignment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You conflate falsifiability with proving a negative and the two aren’t synonymous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm more saying that it doesn't seem to be justification that compels us to cooperate and by extension care for one another.
Then what does it seem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So if the meaning of life is unfalsifiable then why aren’t you a nihilist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF testing is believing THEN the untestable is the unbelievable.
So how did you test the meaning of life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is actually supportable is that it is unreasonable to believe in something unfalsifiable.
On the contrary, it is unreasonable to believe in something falsifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You seem to be missing why unfalsifiablility is a problem when constructing a logical necessary.
You gotta quote from me displaying this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Coming from the guy that can’t even demonstrate such thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
We can all think of many, many cases where two negatives don’t make a positive. Rain on your wedding day plus grand larceny on your wedding day does not make for a winning combination, despite what “two negatives make a positive” would suggest. I can see why you believe in God.
No you don’t because you lack the understanding to comprehend context and the many definitions of a word. The context that we were originally discussing in regards to the word negative is “consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features.” The one you used as a retort is “(of a person, attitude, or situation) not desirable or optimistic.” A non sequitur BTW Google is free dude I didn’t just make this up out of thin air.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No only in the way we choose to define it.
Why do we even have to choose to define it at all? If your correct in your lack of belief in a higher power then there’s no morality or anything remotely close to it in the slightest no matter what alternative you suggest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well how do you define subjective morality, and where’s the but in this definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What negative or positive claim am I making?
That there’s a “but” in regards to subjective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I guess you haven’t paid attention in math or English class (but I guess I can educate you for free because I’m a nice guy) two negatives always equals a positive.
Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk 👏🏾
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I can make negative claims all I want, the burden of proof is on YOU since you’re the one making the positive claim so to use your words against you
Prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Prove it.
You can’t prove a negative (one of the many rules of logic)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
ok but
How are you going to say okay and in the same breath dismiss that okay by asking the same question? There is no “but” period.
Created: