Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Again - harm, as we both saw, more accurately represents physical damage to a structure, or something along those lines- but bad and harm aren't analagous as you said they were. They can be, but they aren't necessarily. Also, benefit is either a gathering or an advantage.... so... you're wrong there too. Furthermore, this doesn't really matter.... let's assume, even though you're wrong, that you're right - and benefit means good and harm means bad. The portion of it that is subjective is whether humans being harmed is bad or not, and whether humans being benefited is bad or not, the entire aspect of us putting human into that spot and not say, mice, or the sun, is the subjective gauge. And you always try to change the subject whenever I mention that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
They do deviate though... not to mention, that wasn't the primary point, the point was that that could be a valid definition of god, given that you accept the subjective premise - and obviously humans do. You have yet to demonstrate that it is the preferred definition or that there is objective basis for accepting that. Not to mention this is, in general, a semantic point with little value to the real conversation. It doesn't matter if good specifically doesn't apply here, what matters is that benefiting humans is on the positive scale of morality with a objective basis or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
It is, its a branch of Protestantism - which is a form of Christianity which branched off from Catholicism whenever Martin Luthor objected to the oppression of the Catholic Church, the practice of not giving the public bibles, and a lot of their interpretations of the bible; generally following Luthor's interpretations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Did... you ignore my point... .those dictionaries also have several other definitions of harm and benefits, why aren't those the defintions here? You would still have to make an assertion in arguing that it is necessarily true, which it isn't it is true if you accept a subjective premise, which is why there are definitions that line up like that at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Are you joking right now? Seriously? Yes morality is a word, but that is describing a feature of the thing I am using to communicate, not what it is fundamentally. Obviously "water" is a word, but the actual thing, "water" is not word, its a liquid composed of hydrogen and oxygen. That applies here, those fundamental things aren't words. You are incorrect and are seeming to not be taking this seriously more and more.
Created:
Posted in:
Take the example of one's being "pro-choice" and supporting "age of consent" laws. Presumably one is pro-choice because they support the principle that a person's body falls within that person's domain; thus how one behaves one's body is at one's discretion. Why then would this not be the case as it applies to sex? And progressives are notorious for lobbying to raise the age of consent. Why then is it a goal to preserve one's bodily integrity as it applies to exercising an abortion, but not a goal to preserve it when it concerns the act of which an abortion is a consequence? How does the inconsistency not undermine the ideology?
To answer your last question first, because you have no idea what your talking about. Like... that's really it. Let's properly explain what you attempted to, I hope this isn't your best example:
Pro-choice is the take that the one impregnated has the choice of what develops in their body.. pretty straight forwards that's just the freedom of anatomy. Raising the age of consent is typically argued for the same reasons that raising the age for drafting or drinking is, because the brain is not fully developed. The argument typically goes along the lines that having sex with someone under the age of consent is statutory rape, but people object to that specific line... 18, is arbitary, thus, they want to raise the line to something which isn't arbitrary. Someone who is seeking abortion is seeking to correct something that has happened to them - whereas the age of consent is speaking of someone's physical and mental fortitude to do x or y. Obviously people who aren't 18 have had sex and can handle it fine, but the problem is to protect the masses, so speaking from a policy perspective, the choice is either: Leave it at a line which was arbitrary in the first place, or raise it to somewhere that makes sense. Of course, some would argue that's lower, and some would argue that its higher. But the fundamental point is that the difference is correcting a state that they are in, and doing something with lots of potential bad consequences. the two things aren't equatable. You have made a false comparison, congratulations.
This is contradicting your previous argument. You stated that you can still believe in a god, be a theist, and not subscribe to the particular tenets associated with that brand of theism. And with this argument, you're stating that theism is defined by its tenets; even if you were arguing that these tenets are subject to debate (and they're really not) that would make the tenets irrelevant given that their being moot would dissolve any distinctions between religions. Thus, theism would necessitate believing in at least one god, regardless of the tenets.
Um.... no, did you not understand the point? The proper point is that, there are tenents being preferred, the actual specific tenets don't actually matter - just that there are some. That was what I was talking about. You are right in a manner of speaking, theism is of "tenets", but rather than what ones, as you seem to believe, its a question of if there are any at all. This entire point was about how- as long as your believed in that god, you don't have to necessarily adopt all of the positions that, say, the bible supports. And you've actually agreed with me, you call it a tenet, I'm saying that is the goal. Each policy is not the "goal" of progressives, but part of working towards a goal, and that goal is ensuring the promise that America actually set out to do, provide a land of oppurtunity where everybody was treated equally. You can nitpick all you want, I don't care.
No, it wasn't. But we not debate over this, anymore
Interesting take, but yes, yes it was a nitpick.
I'm not being arbitrary at all. The opposite, actually: I'm consistent. And yes, they cannot be nuanced. Feelings can be nuanced. The environment can be nuanced. Situations can be nuanced. Principles cannot. Because principles act as axioms which serve an absolute condition.
Look at the guy, misunderstanding another word! Give him a clap on the back! Yes, some principles are axioms, others are not. Some principles are axioms - and as such people can be incorrect about what axioms logically lead to, such is every logical fallacy. But still.... axioms are nuanced, things which are true still hold nuance. An axiom is a thing which is self-evidently true, established, or accepted - nothing about that is absolute, I suppose you could argue that something which is self-evidently true is absolute, but I would say that logic can be nuanced... so again, incorrect.
No, this is just a pretext used to inform the hypocrisy of your position. Case in point: I support a pro-choice position. Does this endorsement make me a Democrat or a progressive? No. It doesn't even make me slightly "progressive." Even if I were to agree with most "progressive" principles, I still wouldn't be a "progressive." Because "most" and not "all" just means that I have not reconciled the reasoning that informs my supporting most, but not the rest--of course presuming progressivism is a set of consistent principles. (I would argue that it's not--one of those reasons mentioned above.)
Your entire point is based on faulty reasoning, such as false equivalences and non-sequiturs. Again, an ideology is just a system of idea and ideals, what about that is absolute? What about that can't be misinterpreted, what about that must stay consistent? I would argue that progressives have the same core values, and whether a policy reaches that goal is what depends if something is of that ideology, just like principles can be applied differently and be correct or incorrect based on the circumstances - that seem thing applies to how ideas are under a ideology. Sometimes things can be more aligned or less aligned, that's a basic part of any "ideal" because its necessarily subjective and relative. What you stack on top of that is the objective part. Most of your ideas can be aligned with progressisvm and you can not at all be a progressive I agree, if your fundamental goal or end result you seek is not that of progressivism then you aren't one - that is true, but again, people can disagree what best gets you to those ideas, and you don't even address that point, you literally hand wave it away and try to use red herrings as if their arguments.
How am I "factually incorrect"? How does this either refute or exclude my description
Someone isn't paying attention - we are talking of political ideologies no? If an idea is just a system of ideas and ideals, you argued for something to apply to a political ideology you must agree with all tenets... except... those tenets will always be up for debate, of course there may be a true set of tenets that will lead you to a goal, but there may be another way to get to that goal, to accomplish it. To get from 4 to 6 you could add two, or you could subtract negative 2, either way gets you to 6. You could multiple 4 by 1.5 and get 6. My point - is that there are multiple ways to get to a goal, therefore, each progressive might have different ideas on what is the best way to get to the goal. Thus debating between progressives is deciding which tenets, even principles are the right way to get to a goal.
First, "seem" is not an argument; second, where does "the dictionary specifically disagree with [me]"?
Mmhm, it actually is - the preponderance of evidence or the likely hood of something can point in a direction, say to either x or y, and the other be technically true, so I am careful with my language in that regard. It is just a stand in for, "Likely" or "Most likely".. and I explained it above.
Describe how one functionally adheres and does not adhere to a goal. And we're not talking about subjective gauges of significance. We're talking about the constitution of adherence.
Do you mean how someone can only partially adhere to a goal? Gladly - let's say the goal is to eat some cake. The most direct route is to immediately search for some cake and consume it, its not as if they cost much at the market or are particularly hard to find. Now, to expand the analogy, let's say there are two people with this goal, x and y, x is going to buy some cake mix and make a cake, y is going to buy a cake premade from a bakery. Technically both things would get you closer to eating a cake, but buying one premade is more aligned with eating a cake, as all you have to do is... buy then eat the cake. Whereas baking the cake makes eating it a secondary priority, otherwise x would have just bought the premade cake. To make that more concise - you can have multiple goals, whenever one goal has more priority than another, you can do something towards the first goal which interferes with the second, but the end result and intention still being the first goal. So if we were to take this as technical as you can - you would be correct that you have to adhere to a goal to adhere to a goal, but in practice, you can adhere to a goal while also not... you can begin to adhere to one goal more than another. Also.... that would be assuming that there is only one way to get to a goal... why is it impossible for there to be multiple efficient routes to get to one goal? So... yes, an aspect of subjectiveness does enter the mix, whether you like it or not.
You've done no such thing. You provided a definition which you have yet to delineate its exclusion of my description.
Because it doesn't and I thought that would be more apparent, I suppose I was wrong in that assumption.
No, they are not Christians.
So people who believe in christ aren't christians? Is that what you're arguing?
How do you know this?
This is basing off of the holy book described, which effectively defines christianity for us.
How does one who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ get sent to Hell? How do we know they were sent to Hell?
If someone were to follow all of Christ's teachings but not believe that he existed, then they would go to hell, as is described in the bible, so in the hypothetical that the christian god exists, and follows the principles of the bible, that's how that would go down.
Yes. There are no temporal or chronological restrictions on following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
So then you agree with my point.
How?
I explained in the lines above, notice the entire thing is a paragraph? That's because each sentence leads into the next.
But that is no less an assumption. You're ascribing it Christianity as one of its principles
An assumption? That's most likely the case, that is if to say that whenever the cheese is on the counter, that someone left out that cheese is an assumption. And... considering that it was in exodus in a long list of rules.... that is at least a tenet of Christianity.
No
Gonna explain yourself?
You know the ones you follow, and presumably, you know the ones you don't follow. Which are the ones you don't follow? Which are the ones you associate with progressivism, but with which you don't align your goals?
Mmm. no, I don't think you're arguing in good faith, so I'm sticking to what I said before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Measuring whether something is subjective or not is not semantic, something is subjective whenever it depends on the mind to be true, whereas something that is objective does not. that has nothing to do with semantics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I have yet to be convinced by the position that "god(s) exist" and because there is an supernatural agent being described, the default position is that there is no such thing. To claim otherwise would require more assumptions and more evidence of such. Not to mention - there being god(s) would imply that certain things (such as immortality, creating matter precisely, etc) that has not been demonstrated otherwise, in other words, these things not being evidently possible is evidence against the position of such things. Let me ask you a question, how are you capable of observing the nonexistence of a 1000 dollar bill? Because its not there, that is the evidence of there not being a dollar bill.... there not being a dollar bill. As such, in this singular case - absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Because we are discussing the existence of an agent specifically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It as in reference to your previous post, which is clear given the context of having written the post, as you did - specifically - it refers to whether or not something is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMelioist
Most definitely not, I would make it my life's work to undermine him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No its not, its referring to whether something is true with or without a mind. Because subjective things are dependent on the mind for existence, while objective things aren't. You haven't made a point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do you have any way to substantiate that only one interpretation of any context is correct? Because that is a large assertion there, that you would have to demonstrate. My point is - you are grasping at straws here. "Semantics are a fundamental truth" is not only wrong, but not the point. We're talking about the view that things benefiting humans are good and things causing negatives towards them is bad, thats a subjective take. If you want to stay on topic, we can discuss that, unless you want to continue on this path that will inevitably lead to me calling you out for being pedantic again, and not addressing my main points... again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
While some are correct, thats how interpretations work, my point is that there are multiple interpretations
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That doesn't support your claim, you've given an example of context... not demonstrated that it is more than a concept. "The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood." This is shifting, the context is always different, are you arguing that context exists? Because yes, it does, but it doesn't have anything to do with objective or fundamental truths which don't change. My point was that, like the context which is also changing, language is. Hence my point. By the way, you never got back to me about language. Do you think that pointing out something about context you've somehow rebutted my point about language not being a fundamental truth, I mean, obviously language is something which exists, but its something which is highly interpretable. This is the type of thing that is subject to your definition of subjective.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Interesting rhetoric there, if you say you have no interest in continuing our back and forth, fine - I would only ask that if you want any reasonable credence to your claims that you substantiate them. You don't have to have any reasonable credence, I'm only reminding you that you haven't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You know what? no. Demonstrate that. Substantiate your claim. You've made an assertion, "Contextualization is a fundamental truth". Before we go any further, I want you to substantiate one claim that you've made today, and I'd like you to start with that one,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What? First of all, language is probably the least fundamental of any "truth", its extremely relative and depends on the definition and the argument specifically, hence why I said "contextual" I'm sorry but you are fundamentally mistaken if you think that language is a fundamental truth. Logic is more so, but thats still a presumption, obviously its a self-evident assumption, since in order to critisize it you have to use logic, but both of these fall flat of fundamental truths.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's fair, to be honest I thought the GOP was split and that Trump was just getting a bigger voter turnout
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
They can be, but that isn't necessarily true - "Relating to meaning in language or logic." So while some semantics can be related to logic, not all are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Semantics? No. Semantics are meant to give context to circumstantial claims - which is the perspective that they can be useful in argument, the problem is that we are speaking of fundamental truths and whether they are actual. So no, I don't think so - especially in this context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes. Yes I would - because those are assertions, not philosophic objective truths
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes, the means of verifying something is objective, its the framing that is subjective as I have reminded you countless times, it is the framing that something beneficial to humans is good and something negative to humans is bad, that framing is subjective - but you can still build on top of that subjective morality with objective oughts, based on this presumption we can say x or y. As long as you agree that we should care about any person's wellbeing (even if you only care for your own) this morality can apply.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well I oop. I guess my benefit of the doubt was misplaced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I answered your question, we would use empirical testing to descover what is most beneficial, its not like we're behind in this regard, and we have the fundamental building blocks to argue against most of the immoral stuff. I mean obviously people don't like this for lots of reasons, some feel that they need an agent giving moral commands, but that is quite literally tyranny. Some are biased against certain things (homophobes, transphobes, racists, bigots in general) and don't like that the empirical results come back differently from what they believe, but they have been very useful for humanity as a whole, expecially in improving the quality of life, and lowering infanticide.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Honestly I feel bad for people who are just republicans, but don't support Trump, imagine all of the people who believe that this is normal GOP, not that I think the GOP is in the right, but I don't think they are anywhere near this. I think this will definitely bias people against republicans for a long time, more specifically on the democratic and liberal front. I know for a fact that fellow progressives are going to use this to try to attack the average republican.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I put it in a question because I thought that was obvious. How else would you test well-being? I think that empirical results are one of the best ways to do that, they have given us several, not only technological, but medical break throughs, I think they'd suffice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The problem is you assume that harming humans is wrong, thats still a subjective value
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Did... did you not read my og post? I literally had a quote that way my meaning wouldn't be mis-interpreted. I do not hate all theists, nor have I ever said that I did. I said, "I think it is better that no god exists." That is what an anti-theist is. Please read next time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then demonstrate that it's objective, as far as I can tell - morality is subjective, prove otherwise - or substantiate your objections against my syllogism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
Okay... but how does that inform some sort of problem with the post? Was your only intention to say that you didn't like the idea of a multiverse? The original post, "This aint spiderman" seemed to imply that you thought the multiverse theory untrue, now, I tend to agree with that, but what is your specific reasoning for thinking so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
What part of the original post are you specifically disagreeing with and what is your reasoning for doing so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Oof, I realized I never reponded, no that is actually providing the context to the quote - you intentionally made a statement like that you could have phrased it differently, but the fact that you choose to specify "black lives" inclines me to believe that you had ulterior motivation in writing that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
How, precisely, is that a cogent objection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
Eh, not quite, there's actually a fair bit of activity - but the reason you don't have much response is because your points aren't particularly controversial, or really conversational, if that makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Um... the fact that you have, repeatedly, asserted that the only way there can be morals is with god... .and you have yet to substantiate that claim
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't know you, and I don't know if they're correct, but if I were to guess? I'd say you were looking for affirmation of your own belief by trying to discard others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
By the empirical results? Why are you so against mankind making its own moral creed, why are you so against principles which probably align with a lot of your own? Because so far - you've yet to strike it in any critical critereon. Don't get me wrong, this argument is by no means perfect, and there are flaws - people have criticized my take before, but they always hit much harder than you are now - attacking much more contingent points - in fact - I even pointed you to a source with nearly 30 to 40 posts of direct criticism, and though we have gone back forth for hundreds of posts I believe he attacked it on much more fronts, and much more effectively than you did. I gave you the link to my "Moral subjectivist AMA" forum, did you not look at that either? To me personally - it seems as if your objection with this morality is your bias towards god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
As in, there's an actual definition of roast (colloquial as it may be), but also I had the slightest bit of self-confidence back then
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Are you asking what I use as my standard of morailty? I've already explained that, well-being, or if you like, "Something which positively benefits the mental and physical state of someone."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
As I have already defined - subjective in this context is referring to something which depends on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence, so subjective morality is morality that is dependent on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence. Think in terms of social constructs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That principles are not used to affirm subjective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No.... the opposite conclusion that they are not used to affirm subjective principle, there is a slight difference, as semantically-inclined as you are I thought you would appreciate it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to myself, hence the use of the pronoun, "I", and yes. You could construe that definition in a way that would be opposite the conclusion I reached. That conclusion being, "Principles used to affirm morality are subjective".
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
"seemed" Why did it seem like I wanted to take the presumed position? Did I not explain it properly, if you have an objection in my writing, then do point it out. There is plenty of things that are specifically calling you out as being incorrect factually, so if you feel the need to disagree and also prove a point, then I would suggest making a point. Otherwise its reasonable to assume you have none. Besides being obtuse or contrarian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No, that was an example of what one of the roots of principle could be, referring to the scientific or "fundamental" truths that it refers to as opposed to the "or propositions" You seem to be purposely obtuse here. Evolution being used as an example literally doesn't matter, you didn't even read what I was talking about, for the third time, if your take away was, "Evolution? Whaaa?" Then you need to relearn how to identify the main idea of a passage. Not to mention, you brought this entire "evolution" (and when i say brought up, I don't mean the first one to mention it, that was me, you were the first one to make it a main topic of discussion), as a red herring, or will you finally address the points I brought up? From posts #59 and #61
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Did you... ignore my point? The entire purpose was to explain the definition of principle and what I was referring to, I was using a distinction in order to strengthen the poignantcy of my line of reasoning. Was "what does evolution have to do with this" all you got? I answered your criticism of my use of principle. Next?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That the belief system being addressed are fundamentally different, morality and evolution that is - technically, a materialist or a naturalists world view is based on fundamental truths, or scientific principles, and that is what I was referring to, these fundamental truths as opposed to the next two words, "or propositions" which refers to worldviews like morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Again, let's assume that my specific argument for the subjective nature of morality was incorrect, that would not lead you to conclude in all instances: "Morality isn't subjective" You would still have to provide evidence for that assertion, just as I would have to provide evidence for the assertion, "Morality isn't objective" even if I were to defeat your singular argument. Furthermore, you are also assuming that the only route that would lead to objective morality is god, you have not substantiated that claim, do that. Instead of trying to rely on pedantics to strengthen your arguments, use some sort of reasoning. As for "I disagree with your conclusion" So far you have had only differences in the definitions of things, and I have explained, and you eventually accepted, my interpretation of definitions for them, as they are the most topical for the syllogism presented. If you have further critique go ahead, but if you are to continously claim 'i disagree' and have any wish of convincing me to agree, then provide something of an objection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You have yet to disprove the Oxford defined definition of Morality, and no, even if I was completely off center, and just wrong, how would that deductive, inductively, or abductively lead to the conclusion, "There is no morality without god." Please explain that, and while your at it, please demonstrate your assertion that, "There is no morality without god"
I understand your confusion, but that doesn't lead to objections that are reasonable.
Created: