Total posts: 2,481
-->
@Theweakeredge
Hold on for a sec, I thought that we can at least agree on that point.
Let me ask you a question are immoral humans harmful yes or no?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes it does the word harm falls along the lines of immoral, I got your semantics for you.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You’re the one that called murder objectively harmful, your words not mine.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But you agreed with that point.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You lost me here, what exactly doesn’t logically follow?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The fact that you call it harmful implies that it matters (at least to you it does) and you can call me semantic all you want I accept the label, semantics is important we won’t get too far without it.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
One minute you say murder is objectively harmful and in the same breath say it’s subjective, contradiction at its finest.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The argument there is morality is dependent on a mind to be true correct? Well I just gave two scenarios where people have minds, they both can’t be true if they conflict with one another which they indeed do.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That makes no sense, so if my mind says murder is wrong and your mind says it’s right then since we both have a mind they’re both true? That’s fundamentally impossible.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Let's say I buy that claim, so what? It does not translate to “ISN’T” either so if that’s your only play here it’s a meaningless weak one.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I didn’t ignore this I said based off the definition of affirm something stated as objective should be believed as such.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Refresh my memory
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Before we go any further you are aware that all facts are objective right?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What exactly was I incorrect about? Because arguing that people have different perspectives is only fitting if I said the opposite or something remotely close, at the end of the day certain perspectives are irrelevant if they’re objectively wrong.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But the different perspectives argument is what I called you out on, if that’s not your argument then what’s the point of making it?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
People having different perspectives doesn’t prove it’s subjective.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That has no relation to anything I said, from certain perspectives - something could be immoral, from others it could be moral - the same thing applies to laws. Why don't you try again
What’s your point? Because I never disputed that.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Immoral laws aren’t moral, try again otherwise have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I can care less what you appreciate jokes on you.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So actually - yes - morals can be subjective and treated as fact, are they technically "fact" well yes
Morals are technically fact? Well then I guess we’ve reached an agreement I rest my case.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What they actually are isn’t the point, it’s what you believe and it makes no sense to believe morality is subjective if you say a moral claim is a fact.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That mean the principles which people say are fact in order to claim that morality is true are subjective.
The terms fact and subjective should never be used in the same sentence in that context because facts are objective.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If I’m “not getting” it then that implies that I always see it as fact when I made it clear that I know that’s not always the case, It does matter because it applies to you, making your stance contradictory for example if you’re making a moral claim that means by definition of affirm your stating it as fact, if you’re stating it as fact you’re also stating it as objective, so with that being said you should believe morality to be objective just based on the definition of affirm. What you’re not getting is the distinction isn’t the point, the point is if you state something as objective you should believe it to be so regardless of whether or not your right or wrong otherwise what’s the point of stating it?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you’re gonna accuse me of saying things that I didn’t say then at the very least you can do is quote me when did I ever say that it is.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No but it means it’s also stated as objective.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
...Whatever regardless whether your stating as fact, treating as fact, or presuming as fact, fact of the matter is your also stating, treating, and presuming objectivity period.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No with presumptions you accept the possibility of being wrong when stating something as fact that’s not the case.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Like I said before context, over the course of this discussion the only one that said something for the sake of the conversation was me so no that can’t be what you meant.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Seriously dude context matters and that’s not what you were doing when you initially said presume.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Sorry but presume and fact should not be used in the same sentence try again, also when did I ever say you said that they are fact please quote me otherwise have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades and for the record your wrong my plan was to follow up with more questions the second one being personal, so if every moral claim you make you’re stating as a fact then why don’t you believe it to be so?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You’re jumping the gun here all I asked was if we can agree that the definition says stated as fact and you take that and run with your own narrative slow down now.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But according to the definition it’s stated as fact, and like you said “I could care less about your appeal to authority” so however a hypothetical debate is judged is irrelevant.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
One minute I’m semantic the next I can’t comprehend basic English 🤔 nonetheless at the very least can you agree that morality is stated as fact?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I love how you call me out for appeal to authority when your appeal to authority is lexico, nonetheless if morality is something that’s stated as fact then why on earth would you think it’s subjective? I warned you earlier that this is where this is headed and you took me on anyway, you’re just salty that you lost and if you stopped the conversation with me then you wouldn’t have replied to a message that wasn’t intended for you and if I’m misframing your argument now’s your chance to clear things up otherwise have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I literally just told you it was Google but Bing uses the same definition so here you go https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+affirm&qs=LS&pq=define+af&sk=PRES1LS1EP1&sc=5-9&cvid=2CBBC11D02764EC7B80D32FF629B62FF&FORM=QBLH&sp=3
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Unless you have a direct quote that I could play off of don’t waste my time sending me on a random goose chase to read some phony book.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Usually when people start their premises with in other words theirs a reason for doing so but that’s not the here nor there, how about we let Google settle this because they define it as “state as a fact; assert strongly and publicly.” So by definition the only things that are done that way are objective things, I got your semantics for you.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That makes no sense, how can you call something that can be affirmed subjective? I don’t know if you’re into semantic disputes but that’s where this is headed, do you know what affirm means?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay for arguments sake I’ll concede that point, your turn.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's not an assumption, definitionally speaking - all morality is subjective
Prove it
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And you’re saying that under the assumption that theirs subjective morality which their isn’t.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
How can you possibly know that? I don’t know you personally but you probably have parents that raised you and taught you what you know, and went to school and had certain influences in your life that’s all input.
That question starts a circle which I’ve answered already morality is proof of God’s existence.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
We don’t come into the world with knowledge, babies don’t have knowledge it’s empirical input that got us here.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
No you’re not answering mine, you can’t define a word with the word itself that’s not how logic works, so again I ask what’s a priori reason?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What is pure reason?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
And where does pure practical reason come from? Although I prefer logic over practicality.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Not all believers believe in the God depicted in The Bible but nice try though.
Created: