Theweakeredge

Half of that wasn't addressed to me, but I A) Gave you several examples of things which are objective; water, cats (new example yaay), Cactus, Disco Balls, Stars, The Universe, ect, ect, all of those things are objective - things which are social constructs are subjective typically  - while some have routes in objectivity - the actual extrapolation is subjective. As you still haven't quoted when I said actual before you said it I doubt that, could have I used a throwaway word like actual at one point with more context? Sure, but it doesn't matter. I'll just concede that it doesn't exactly mean actual, but it does... and again, the as demonstrated by the definitions that you did not quote or reference, they are literally exact opposites. You can illogically ignore that fact, but that would be handwaving. You are actually dodging a proper rebuttal. 

Hate to steal your line, but that was well stated

Mmmhm

Its all good, just pointing that out

Oh? Now I'm interested

Except... I made the contention that they should have equal rights, just that they should have more protection, which I guess is extra privilege? But not how the OG poster asked it, considering that everyone who needs more protection should get it, it isn't really a privilege, which is basically what I said. I didn't make this topic, nor ask the question

Dodging? It would be dodging if I didn't address your point or change the subject, you have yet to provide a cogent rebuttal, on top of that, you were the one who provided a red-herring of "actual vs not actual" that was your thing, and didn't address the thing at hand, furthermore, I provided a long, probably 15 line paragraph that I have not seen you even try to address, you seem to be the party "dodging" 

I oppose the idea of god, as I have explained countless times. 

No. No they don't, for example - a story about General Zod, I haven't watched that movie, I know the idea of General Zod though, he's a tyrant and against superman, I am therefore against the idea of General Zod, even though he does not exist. You are trying to make up rules and connect things that don't connect, and make non-sequiturs, a couple examples:

No.. no it doesn't how does the reader becoming invested in a story lead you to the conclusion that a character exists, yes, the idea of the character exists, but not the actual character. For another example - I am very invested in Spider-Man's newest comic line (The Amazing Spiderman 2018), does that mean Peter Parker a.k.a Spider-Man exists? No. No it doesn't.

Wrong! It is an idea of an entitiy, which you can oppose like you could real people, just because the character is declared as non-existent that does not mean you can't have feelings for or against that character, are you saying every time you read a comic book, you say "That character is real! Yup. In this world." No.. no you don't a suspension of disbelief is saying "I know you do not exist and this can not happen, but in order to have enjoyment, let's pretend that it does" It is predicated on the idea that that thing doesn't exist....

I think History, no offence, misses the point in asking for that - we should be comparing severity and ultimate point of the riots, and the evidence to back both of them. Whereas there was and still is substantial evidence of 2016 involvement from other countries, or at the very least, substantial evidence, there has been literally no valid evidence of any widespread election fraud. From a surface level, they seem similar, but analyzing the actual evidence of both reveals quite a bit. Furthermore, we should discuss another thing... Hilary Clinton did not cause those riots.... the numbers were smaller in riots, where there were more protests... and finally... none of them attacked the capitol literally trying to tear apart the congress... or use bombs.... also "three officers injured" really doubling down on the whole "Police Officers are systemically biased (racist is a big part of that) and employ different levels of force on each protest or riot, and thus get a larger or smaller push back.

Except... there is a distinction between protection and rights, there is a base line protection that your rights gurantee you, I am just saying that there should be extra emphasis, a bit more, on groups which are targeted. Such as females are in sexual harrasment. You are assuming that protection is equal, which its not, there is a base line - and that should be equal, but obviously, babies have more protection than a 25 year old, because the minimum protection for babies to thrive, is higher than it is for your average 25 year old. 

Yes.... yes you can... I would rather there never be a joker, are you saying you would want there to be a joker? Are you saying its impossible to dislike fictional characters? You are just wrong, Like, I'm not sure how to be more frank, you absolutely can dislike something that doesn't exist, because the idea of it exists, and you can dislike the idea, and as that is the only thing you can operate your opinion about, you absolutely can dislike something that doesn't exist in one regard, because it does exist in another. Furthermore, this is about being against the notion of there being one, so its not in reference to it itself, but to the idea that it would exist... you are just so fallacious here, non-sequitur for the win there Fauxlaw, that its hard to tell if you're being serious.

Exactly!

Are you actually daft? You don't think there can be more than one definition of a word? Wow oh wow, you must be arrogant, do you think that there is only one type of god? Do you not understand basic language? Time for a middle school lesson:

There is literally a category of words that are the same and mean different things.

Do you think that every word means the same thing to everybody? Yes - there can be one preferred definition whenever we are speaking on one topic or part of that subject, but each subject can have a different meaning of the same word that are just as valid, depending on the context. Proof, for example, means something different whenever discussing philosophic proofs and mathematic proofs. They are similar but not exactly the same.

DId you not pay attention to the definitions that I linked? I could care less about how you think is logically coherent, you've already shown yourself not the best at that. The difference isn't whether it's actual or not, you have missed the point - morality is "actual" in a manner of speaking - its what that actuallity is dependent on that makes the separation. The difference is whether something depends on the mind or not, just because you can't understand why this works doesn't mean it doesn't work. The two definitions are directly opposite... again, it seems to me that you are too stuck in your biases to make a coherent argument. According to the actual definitions these two definitions are opposite, now, is there another set of definitions for objective and subjective? Yes! And they are the ones you are talking about; however, those definitions are more apt for speaking of bias, not the origin of an abstract concept like Morality. Morality is a thing made up of principles pitted against each other, so what differenciates one moral system from another is which principle and why, but these principles are subjective, they are preferred over one another based on humans being consciousness, I suppose from your vague use of "actual" you could argue that the subjective I'm using means not-actual, but there is a distinction between a philosophic, conceptual actual, and a physical one. That is the difference, from the latter's perspective - yes the meaning of subjective could refer to "non-actual" but because there are subjective moral networks, that doesn't work does it? You can actually still describe these things, as again, Moralities are conceptual and abstract - not things like water or buildings, therefore the take I've used it more topical. Notice how I actually put thought into this? Unlike you. What is that rambling of god? Obviously things are objective - the computer or phone you're typing on is objectively real, the chair you could sit on is objectively real. Etc, etc.. The "experience problem" in which people try to make a separation between the experience of seeing the color red, and the actual depiction of red, waves of light being absorbed or reflected, are just the difference between something which exists subjectively, dependent on the mind, and something objective. I wasn't saying that if a god existed, they wouldn't objectively exist, I'm saying that if the origin of their moral system is themselves, then it wouldn't objective. You can have something subjective come from something objective, in fact, as a mind/brain is objective, you necessarily have to. Being dishonest? That's rich coming from you, I was implying the main point, that you thought that subjective doesn't mean not-actual, whereas you take the time to cut out large chunks of my argument, and don't even argue appropriately, either missing, ignoring, or hand waving the objections away.

Funny how you are the one who is incorrect, not even a little incorrect, but as incorrect as you can be. 

Wrong, they should have equal rights as others, to have more protection simply means that they are more targeted than average, for example: Whenever people, police, or even the lecturers who teach about sexual harassment do anything though of course they have things about males and give them protection, but far more is allocated to girls because they are much more likely to be sexually harrassed. It is a place of emphasis.

Can you not belive that the Joker does not exist and also be against him? Like what? I can not like a fictional character, are you being serious? Is this your "oh so logical" reaction here? A cheap gotcha that doesn't actually follow through?

Has anyone ever been so blatantly wrong that you wanted to laugh? Because that's kind of what I wanna do at you, "Never means not actual" Really? You think that? You weren't paying attention were you? This is the definition I was referencing, and just for you, I'll put em side by side, just so you can connect the two, I know it can be a bit hard for you at times:

Subjective - "Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."

I am typically very anti-authoratarian, even in the best circumstances - let's say the person is really nice, cares about their "country" or "nation" or whatever - Running a country is hard from what I've read they can become very easily overworked, even good people are manipulatable, whenever one person is in charge of everything typically there aren't people checking their work, so they make more mistakes.... but.... even "good" people can be wrong, and can be corrupted by literally being the king of everything. To be clear, that won't even be the case most of the time, and even if, let's like in Rome, you start off with a "good" or at the very least successful dictator, it is not very likely that will last. Decentralized Control? Hmm.... I'd have to do more research to answer for sure, but from what I've read it seems appealing.

Except you claimed... there was no pattern, and there is a pattern... not to mention.... you haven't really responded to other's criticism, especially not mine, except with the sterotypical, "Ah.. man, you just aren't smart enough to do i, you-you-  just aren't smart enough." With nothing of substance besides that. The real fault I find is that you seem to have, in this one thread in particular, a hard time substantiating your claims. In fact earlier, I showed and proved that typically speaking - number puzzles have context for the person to have a logical method to reaching the described goal, otherwise, you are literally just guessing the goal. You can claim that one way is the "way to solve it" but you have yet to prove it.

No I mean the musical, written by Lin-Manual, a sort of character study over the American founding father, Alexander Hamilton

Gotta love all the Tu Quoque fallacies

Yes, there are different definitions of the word objective, and I could care less if you prefer that definition, I was referring to my case regarding subjective morality that objective and subjective terms I got from the Lexico dictionary the Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary, therefore is a definition I can use perfectly justifiably. Its not like I just made these definitions up out of thin air with no relation to the other dictionaries. I will correct you, your definitions are much more in line with the colloquial use of the words, but that does not inherently mean that the colloquial definitions are the "better" definitions. That just doesn't apply. I specified that in your examples, you were describing a different sort of subjectivity than I was, I don't care if you don't like that fact, you have yet to convince me that you actually apply the criticism of others "not being logical" onto yourself. By the way, you are supporting monarchy.... or are you saying that, generally speaking, people who create the rules aren't subject to them? Because if a "perfect being" makes rules then they are perfect, and should apply to everyone.... because they are necessarily perfect. Like... even if you tried to argue that "humans aren't perfect" apparently we were kinda then humans messed up. So.... not really perfect there. Of course you could argue that god.... intentionally made imperfect rules? Yeah... I think you should start to get the contradictions in your rhetoric.

I'm glad I'm not the only fan! I absolutely loved the show, and now Daveed Diggs has made it onto my list of absolute favorite actors - its a great.

It took me like 4 years but I finally watched it the other day, whenever I finally got Disney Plus, I quite liked it - and though the musical wasn't perfect - I think it did an overall pretty good job at summing up his life's major points. I'm just curious what other people thought? Not just on that either, I also really liked the performances in general, and from what I can tell Lin-Manual Miranda did an excellent job at writing this. 

Do you have a substantial objection?

Yes I am an anti-theist, but as I pointed out, that does not necessarily mean that you hate theists. That is you assuming what an antitheist is without actually looking into it

Do you mean this post? That is factually incorrect, I already addressed this claim. I never claimed that all theists hate you, in fact, this had literally nothing to do with the gay thing. IN fact, the only reason that thread was started (as you would know if you actually read it) was to gauge what people would do if there god ordered them to do something, apparently a lot of them would suddenly become skeptics whenever they didn't agree with what "god" was telling them. You didn't make a cogent point, and it so full of assumptions and holes, I had presumed you'd already moved past this one. If you wanna stick with your bad arguments, have fun with that, you are incorrect.

Yes I was, and the fact that I had no evidence to support them. 

You claimed, and I quote

I simply pointed out that, yes I did use an Antitheist. "Explain how you don't really mean antitheist" implies that I argued somehow that I didn't really mean antitheist, or that you don't agree with what I claimed to be an antitheist. You made an assertion that, made little sense even when I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you don't seem inclined to ever explain yourself, only to laugh at those who you disagree with - with... no proper argumentation

Yes... it does say that I'm an antitheist.... that was my point, everything you've declared is lacking syntax and structure, so I'm really not sure what your point is.

I never claimed it was.... It seems to me that you were being a contrarian, but whenever someone at all criticized you, you refuse to make an argument.... oh no, who does that remind me of.

Sure... is that your argument? That I disagree with a lot of things you agree with? 

Um... he drove the riot up, which attacked, and threatened to bomb the capitol of the united states... why? Because their president lost. What happened whenever Hilary lost in 2016, were there riots? Did they attempt to bomb the capitol? Really, what did they do? They started a proper investigation into Trump, and then, the one leading the investigation was fired by Trump... that isn't suspect at all. Furthermore, there was then more abuses of power, and he was impeached, simply not removed from office, the two are separate, one leads to another yes, but they do not necessarily correlate. To continue, the entire riot... why was it committed? Because Trump believes (or so he purports to) that the election was "stolen" from him. He had no evidence to back this up, and has even be found recorded, trying to manipulate votes.... Finally, everytime the rumors which Trump relies on are brought to court, they are dismissed and debunked... time after time. So... this entire riot, which Trump sparked the flames of, whenever he said to go march to DC in his speech, was because of a rumor with no basis behind it? And its not like Trump doesn't know he has no basis behind it. He needs to be impeached again and this time, indited, as he is not capable of handling power. This isn't a case of "being butthurt" this is a case of someone being a danger to the country and the democracy it is supposed to stand for. What do we get instead? A massive riot hanging confederate flags and threatening bombs. 

You have my signature

Let's take a look at this "theism" means the belief in a "personal" god, "anti" means against or not, therefore - against the belief in a god, I suppose you could interpret that differently than I have, but I feel that i have also interpreted it correctly. 

Uh huh, its a bit of a misnomer, so what? 

I agree with Neil here, it is astounding and incredible, always makes me wonder why people try to claim that there is no beauty without god... I've never gotten that.

Except, I had quoted probably one of the most famous anti-theists.... which would be Christopher Hitchens, try again, this is you assuming your conclusion and trying to hand wave away other conclusions.

I could just give you my definition - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual" - I use this definition because of the topic specifically:

 

In this case- we are talking about being able to judge a case without influence from their emotions. Which is the other definition of subjective. 

the same as above, which, again, isn't quite what I'm talking about

Well, if we were to assume that god had some sort of basis that he was using, yes that would be objective - if we are just talking about his mind? No, if something comes from him, as in an idea, then it would be subjective without an objective basis, being god doesn't somehow make god not have a mind, and exempt from the rule

Hopefully that helps clear things up

You should be able to vote regardless of it you've done either, its just that your vote won't be eligible. You should be able to vote by clicking on the "status" category in the debates tab, then selecting "voting" and whenever you scroll down in the debate itself, as long as the debate is finished, you should be able to vote. Ensure that you do read the entire voting policy before you vote.

What do you guys think of Beach, I know it's "Shonen biggie" but I think its still pretty underrated, especially in themes

No, and your post count is up. I think I've made my point clear, as has Zed. Its been clear to me now that this has been a waste of my time. Have a good night.

Have you been.... first off, I hear no responses to anything else, I'm gonna need you to demonstrate those positions before you try to strawman me. Second of all - Murdering being wrong? It's objectively wrong IF and ONLY IF you accept the subjective premise that people's well-being matters. Even if you only accept that your own position matters. I don't actually have to demonstrate that to you because I already did, a while ago, in DMs and in the other forum. But for another thing, you've ignored me again. So here's your last chance buddy, demonstrate your claims and stop with the repetitive red herrings.

So you admit that you don't care what the truth is? You just want to confirm your own bias? You have one post to inform me if this is correct.

Do you not remember all of my lectures about the two different definitions of subjective? Are you that biased? Note how nothing you said actually refuted my points, its just you repeating the same tired BS over and over again, that I put down in our Dm, that I put down in the other thread, and I'll it again here. (Side note - did you not read it? Did you fail to notice that the only part you responded to had "final" in the title, that implies there were arguments prior to it, you gonna respond to those?). I have already answered the questions about appeals to emotion and demonstrated how YOU DO NOT NEED ANY EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS, whatsoever to argue for subjectivity. You have not provided a single shred of evidence that I used emotion whatsoever besides mere speculation that isn't even reasoned correctly. Please, try again. You have failed to make ANY points here. After I stopped responding to you in the other thread, I thought I was being a bit harsh, but I see I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt again. You now have two options, you can A) Continue on in your never ending red herring chase, and be blocked by me immediately after, or B) Actually engage in the argument I presented and not bring up something I have already disproven twice.

First of all, the terms are synoymous with destruction? Which fits because "physical damage" but why is remodeling "bad". Second of all, are you saying I couldn't comprehend or conceptualize morality? Are you saying I couldn't enact it? What do you specifically mean by actualize? Because if you mean, show some physical incantation of it, then you could show an example of objective or subjective morality, so that doesn't work, do you mean show literal objective morality? Because you haven't proven you could do that with objective morality either. And above all of this, where the hell did you get that arbitary set of rules, can you demonstrate that it doesn't apply to objective morality, can you demonstrate that it doesn't apply to subjective morality, you have done neither. Finally - objective arguments hold weight over subjective arguments in a different fashion then what we are talking about - whenever something is influenced by emotions or something to that degree, then objective arguments not based on that would have an advantage, but that is conflating that subjective with the subjective I am talking about. Would people prefer there to be objective morality over subjective? Sure, does that mean there is objective morality? Not that you've demonstrated.