Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's incorrect.
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
The base word atheist is simply a catch-all for god in general, as the actual definition applies. Just homophobic, doesn't mean being afraid of gay people, you can't just take the word(s) that make it up at face value, sometimes they combine to make a new word.
Created:
Posted in:
What? I don't care about your games here. KNowledge - as in information relating to a subject. IQ - The ability to grasp concepts and apply that knowledge. Not knowing something, has literally nothing to do with it. You have not rebuked a single argument against you, you, evidently have literally no idea what you're talking about. I could care less about proving you wrong, whenever your own ignorance proves you wrong for me. I could just give you a shit answer and say, "I don't know, al of the numbers beside the 20s add up to 18?" But that's not a logical course of action (and it's also a pattern, which you said it wasn't so, nope) But that literally doesn't matter, your framing is incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Its almost as if you had context to a puzzle that no one else had. hm....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It was hyperbole... or are you unfamiliar with fictitious language? Whatever floats your boat, my current "frame of mind" as you put it isn't likely to change soon without some sort of dynamic event or the like. If it isn't "profitable", I'm not even sure what you mean exactly, then again, whatever floats your boat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What is a moral action that is wrong or right 100% of the time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
So.... an appeal to authority then? Have any actual reasoning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I'm sorry then, we don't agree on what objective morality is then, I say objective morality is a morality that is true independent of a mind. So no, I don't think that satisfies the definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you ignore, literally everything else? No. Either full response to my post or you will get nothing. I am very tired of your cherry-picking statements to respond to. I will present the dichotomy again, either respond to the entire post or not at all. Or put some kind of indication that you actually read it all and aren't just skimming for statements you disagree with.
I explained myself in the rest of the post. Get off of your high horse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Does your inner circle of IRL friends contain at least one person of every possible skin-tone and or age and or level of physical and or mental "abledness"?
How is that relevant in racism? I don't choose friends (at all most times) based on those qualities. This isn't applicable, if I answered, "yes" obviously I would be lying, if I said, "no," then you would somehow try to twist it. I don't see the connection in this question whatsoever, I also don't see how this answers my question. Are you or are you not against private racism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But being against discrimination based on skin color, how is that wrong?
The paragraph very clearly takes the context for you,
Second: Being against racism, even if you were correct in it's term-age, still wouldn't be true. Especially if people are against the term "racism" then there beliefs would actually line up with yours. But being against discrimination based on skin color, how is that wrong? Explain. Factually speaking, people have been separated into "white" and "black" categories. And yes, a lot of that is disingenuous, but it still happened, and people are still being discriminated against because of it.
Its clearly setting up, that you said being anti-racist is racist, and I asked how so, after delivering context to what you were trying to claim. You are wrong for the same reason people saying all lives matter isn't racist are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
THERE IS SUCH A THING AS RACE
Race is the same as currency. While yes. They are not literally things, culture and society have made them different. I implore you to look through all of my objections and actually engage with my argumentation, instead of taking single lines out of context and ignoring my points, because that is a pretty big pattern of things you do whenever you are disagreed with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Also, only public? So you agree with racism as long as no one hears it? What the hell does that mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, you literally took my words out of context. Please actually employ reason next time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then its not a categorical imperative, for it to be so, it must be non-contradicting in all matters, all of these are unique maxims, and simple shifting what is meant by the moral standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Just ping me on the forum thread whenever you wanna start the interview. You can quote all the conditions there, mine and yours, that way people can see them clearly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You have demonstrated nothing, I have my definition of objective from the oxford dictionary, which is a valid definition. Regardless if you like it or not. You failed to prove a thing, and use non-sequiturs to prop up your arguments.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
To prove it to us? Yes. Also, a single case isn't evidence of a whole. You have proven nothing emprically. Besides that you say you have done x, y, and z. Which, I'll grant because that's reasonable enough to believe. Now, the success, and the that this translates across all capitalism, or that it somehow solves the issues of capitalism? No, your accomplishments do not prove that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, you believe truth to be a fact that is believed by a number of people, and then used an axiom for further discussion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No consensus? Cool.. I don't care. I have already provided you what I mean, you are a joke
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
So... do you have any evidence? Proper? Or just appeals to emotion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
All morality is subjective. Definitionally and necessarily. I've given my perspective of subjective morality so much. IN fact, I have two debates on the subject, as well as a specific thread. But to be clear: I value what is sentient, I measure based on well being
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That wasn't my point... my point was that you are using your expressions your proof of its successes. That was my point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Prove that Y is objectively true... we are speaking on whether objective morality is true, prove that its true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If that is your understanding, then why do you say it has to be "inter-subjective" Unless I misunderstood you're meaning of that word, what precisely do you mean by inter-subjective?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Using yourself as the sole expression of capitalism isn't proof, it's testimony, that famously fails as proof of anything besides the fact that you experienced something and report it to be a, b, or c.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In all circumstances, or as moral axioms? Definitely not. Property, at least according to my moral views, only has moral value because it is valued by someone with sentience, and therefore should be categorically lower on values than people. As for family, again there are instances where something would out rule this. As general broad strokes? They aren't terrible. As moral maxims presented by Kant's thinking, definitely not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Truth as in what is true, or what is comporting to reality, as in - a fact. You seem to have a strange definition of the word truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Kant's whole deal? Yes. Do I think Kant's view is correct. No. See my interactions with Sum1hugme's on the subject.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
"greed" as you put it, is an implicit goal of capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes yes, I realize. Truth would necessarily have to be objective, therefore this is redundant, I am speaking not only on an empirical level but on a philosophic or conceptual one as well (Ironically this makes me recall your lack of response to quite a few of my posts, but wish wash, that's of no concern.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No, I am saying that, if you do not presume x, y is not true. The user has given us no reason to presume x, therefore we should not. That isn't ignorance, that is logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I was saying that as a human there are clear imperatives we should follow, such as: If we want our own sentience or well-being to be taken into consideration(benefit) then we should of others as well. Yes. This is not technically objective, but as someone with these qualities, it is clearly qualitative. For example: I ought not to rape others. Why not? Because it harms them, and if you are saying, "Harming others is fine" you have given implicit permission for others to harm you, else your being hypocritical and you do not have a valid stand for hurting that person. Second you are saying, "invalidating other's autonomy is fine" and the same things apply.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The American system is a mix of either, and always has been, every time we try to become less capitalist, the better. For example: The ending of using children as factory workers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
DId you mean to reply to me as such? Because I don't agree with Fauxlaw here, nor ever insinuated I did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You aren't even addressing the content of my rebuttal, just positing things ad hoc, there is no reasoning behind the applications of your arguments. I am giving you the definition of objective, and saying that the term necessarily can not apply to morality. At least not without evidence. Nowhere in my argument am I "Highlighting ignorance" to prove anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
We are speaking of passports because of the immunity of diseases.... Not whatever you're blabbering on about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Mmm..... right.... except you ignore the other massive bit of my objection
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Mmmhm, and the fact that a lot of people who aren't even trying to do that, shows how effective it is at tricking people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That is not a rebuttal. Objective is defined as something which is true independent of the mind. Therefore you would have to demonstrate this true on a moral axis before you could actually have a descriptor of those morals. Else admit that they're subjective, which I do, and I think that they are practically objective from my P.O.V as a human with a mind but in the objectivity of the universe? No, no they are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Derek Parfit, an Oxford scholar whom is widely considered one of the most important and influential moral philosophers of the late 20th and early 21st centuries
Which is neat that you're using his position to prop up your own position, but ideas are valuable on their own merit, not who thinks them up.
To your actual argument, positing that morality is akin to mathematics. Mathematics is objectively true. Simple as that, now, all mathematics truly are, is a way to express our understanding of the objective laws and rules of the universe. Morality is not like that, there are no encoded morals in such laws of physics. There is no objective reason to value our lives over the sun, or the planet, or insects for that matter. This analogy is false, and does not apply, I think even you would regard that this is simple claims. The entire thing is built upon a non-sequitur, that somehow morality and mathematics are comparable. I see no reason to compare them as so. Why does the state or well-being matter, independent of the minds of such. I will not accept a position merely because it is claimed to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Founded on April 30, 1966 c.e. by Anton Szandor LaVey, we are the first above-ground organization in history openly dedicated to the acceptance of Man’s true nature—that of a carnal beast, living in a cosmos that is indifferent to our existence. To us, Satan is the symbol that best suits the nature of we who are carnal by birth—people who feel no battles raging between our thoughts and feelings, we who do not embrace the concept of a soul imprisoned in a body. He represents pride, liberty, and individualism—qualities often defined as Evil by those who worship external deities, who feel there is a war between their minds and emotions.
Not to mention, you admit it's based on biases (your view of it), and that tacked on descriptor "Social Darwinism" isn't actually something Satanists (Modern) believe in or practice. Using your own source, we discover that the primary source of information you have used is the Church of Satan (Probably not what the OG poster was talking about, but I can roll with it.)
"Contemporary religious practice of Satanism began with the founding of the Church of Satan in 1966"
Therefore, instead of using Wikipedia's weird summation, I'll just go to the actual website and learn about its principles from there.
- Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
- Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
- When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
- If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
- Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
- Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
- Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
- Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
- Do not harm little children.
- Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
- When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
Now there is some pretty obvious hyperbole, and some problems, lets not pretend there isn't, but some of the specific accusations you levied at it, are factually untrue. However, let's also stop pretending that this is what people are talking about whenever they say, "Satanist" in a modern context. There is clearly a group that we can more accurately describe as the majority of Satanists, and the Satanists we are actually talking about, the Satanic Temple:
For the people who don't understand undertone, yes, the next bit is satirical.
"The group uses Satanic imagery to promote egalitarianism, social justice, and the separation of church and state. Their stated mission is "to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people""
Oh? Benevolence and Empathy? Truly! The scum of the earth! They must be stopped before they teach our children to treat everyone with respect and kindness! Oh no! The absolute indignation! No other philosophy could compare to the legitimate danger that this one promotes!! Clearly, Christianity is superior to this ludicrous mockery and perversion of religion! Separation of church and state? How dare they?! Are they trying to undermine the clear theocracy that the USA is?!
Satire? Are they trying to confuse everyone into a gibbering mess?! Do they want to confuse future leaders?! Even more diabolical, LEGAL ACTION??? DO THEY REALLY HAVE THE NERVE!!! To continue on the heinous trainwreck we have people wanting to reevaluate their fears and perceptions??!!! I couldn't even consider letting go of archaic and harmful conceptions! OR ever moving on or recovering from a fear!
Truly, we must dispose of them at once
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm sorry, but without an actual objective moral measurement, no, they are not. If you have no presumptions that humans or well-being matter morally, then those actions aren't immoral. This is the objective take, obviously, I view them as inherently immoral, because I have the presumption that sentience and well-being matter, but without that presumption, it isn't true.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Now I agree having the state-run education system is definitely not the ideal education system, but having it private? That has its own list of flaws. First of all, that can lead to even further education problems, it can be unattainable to the poor, creating an even bigger disparity between the wealthy and the impoverished, it will likely create specialized instead of generalized knowledge of history (even more than is already happening), etc, etc.. I think that what needs to happen is some kind of regulation, balancing act, for the educations system. There needs to be much more accountability on the state to fact check and have more nuanced views on what are usually seen s black and white issues. I don't think the ideal education system is private at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
The literal word, "trannies" is a slur. You are being a bigot. Good bye.
Created:
I am currently in High School, and.... really I don't use the history information that I was taught there. I typically like to go and hind historians that have work that has been verified by other historians, using as much data as is applicable. For example; The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to "end WWII" or at least Japan's side in it. It is often presented as a dichotomy of interests: To end hundreds of thousands in an instant to end the war, or lose millions during a ground invasion. The choice, utilitarianlly anyway, seems obvious. We should reduce the loss of life on either side and stop warfare as soon as possible.
However. Here we have what seems a clear rebuke of that view:
" it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
This survey was called the "UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT" and was quote a,
"The United States Strategic Bombing Survey was established by the Secretary of War on 3 November 1944, pursuant to a directive from the late President Roosevelt. It was established for the purpose of conducting an impartial and expert study of the effects of our aerial attack on Germany, to be used in connection with air attacks on Japan and to establish a basis for evaluating air power as an instrument of military strategy, for planning the future development of the United States armed forces, and for determining future economic policies with respect to the national defense. A summary report and some 200 supporting reports containing the findings of the Survey in Germany have been published. On 15 August 1945, President Truman requested the Survey to conduct a similar study of the effects of all types of air attack in the war against Japan."
My point, in drawing attention here is to ask, how accurate is the history taught in public schools?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I actually disagree that this is another view in the context that we're speaking of, I'm not technically a "humanist" but I am fairly close, I go by sentience as a standard of what we should care about, and well-being as the measurement of morality. I do think the linking of this to morality is subjective, but I also don't believe in objective moral values. My point here is that this perspective is all fine and dandy, but it can technically fall under any of the world views presented, materialism or supernaturalism.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Okay, so this kind annoys me, this isn't a thing, and I don't mean that people don't do this. I mean that this is applicable to anyone someone doesn't like. This isn't unique to Trump, and trying to make it seem like its a widespread thing that liberals have against Trump, which is the implication here, is misinforming people. People do this at Biden a lot, people did this at Hilary, people do this at anyone that they dislike, and lots of people do it against people who are disliked by lots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So..... both point out that not only do these things not exist, but that you have no evidence that they do, but in reality, you were just trying to undermine voting....... Yet the impeachment trials were an "offence to democracy" and all that... Give me a break.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Couple things, "Cite?" Second, Actual accomplishments? To each their own, but I feel like sharpening your mental acuity is an "actual" accomplishment. Accomplishment is relative, for example, one of my self-portraits won second in an art fair. To me, that seems like a pretty good accomplishment, but to a professional artist who's making actual money off of their pieces, it's nothing. Accomplishment, like lots of concepts in life, is relative.
Created: