Total posts: 755
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
I don't care. You make the jump from "some people insulted me on the site and the mods didn't do anything" to "let me make a thread full of everyone I disagree with online + insults"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And I think you're probably right that he's upset. That or just pointless internet rudeness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
When I say insulted I'm referring to the action (i.e. saying something r00d). Not the effect that the action has on the person receiving the insult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You don't think that's how WHAT works?
Pedophilia is more sexually ambivalent than normal sexuality. Pedophiles being attracted to kids of the same gender doesn't mean that they're attracted to adults of the same gender, too; it's not a predictor. Also vice versa. So the notion that pedophiles are really disproportionately homosexual is false, and the notion that pedophiles are mostly straight is probably true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Have the people who you've insulted insulted you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Assias
For someone who's big on moderating personal attacks and verbal misconduct, this isn't a good look.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Are they really? Then those homo pedos are hogging all the limelight, what with the Catholic church, the boys scouts, and what not. Are pedos answering surveys?
Don't think that's how that works.
Created:
Posted in:
What happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
That is not a fair comparison. You're comparing external science with internal principle... a hypothesis of the unknowns of the solar system, to a moral code that we know and use innately.
Why is that distinction relevant? The point is that things don't become true when everyone believes in them. If it doesn't work for external science, why should it work for internal principle?
Ah, but isn't there being a set of principles that universally leads to societal cohesion and survival... well, universal? How is that any less objective? Does it not transcend humanity that, despite all our bickering, we agree to a certain set of moral principles for the sake of the species? Maybe it isn't metaphysical, and is rooted in our biological drive to succeed, but it's definitely objective.
Okay, once again, I'm totally failing to understand how universality implies objectivity.
The problem is that you assume things are good because people want to do them, or that they're neccessary for a species. This assumption rests on several others. One of them is that it's morally good to preserve a species. Another is that the human biological drive to preserve their species or proliferate proves that it's objectively good. None of these assumptions are supported by your syllogism or can really be established as brute facts.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
To me it seems impossible everyone would agree to the same set of principles under a subjective framework.
I don't think universality implies truth. If it did, and everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth, it would be true.
There's plenty of ways to understand moral universalism outside of "it's just true".
One could be that certain moral principles are necessary for societal cohesion which helps people survive or whatever. All that shows is that people want societal cohesion and survival; not necessarily that those things are objectively good.
Another explanation could be biological altruism, the existence of which is disputed. However, once again, people having a natural inclination to be nice to each other doesn't imply that kindness is an objective good.
It's important not to conflate human instinct with moral truth.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
What I'm getting at is that Premise 1 isn't a sufficient condition for Premise 3.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.
This may be true, but I don't think it supports your argument.
Say I'm arguing that when I kick this ball, it'll go 10 feet. I cite evidence showing that when you kick this ball, it goes at least five feet. I say "If this ball goes 10 feet, we can expect it to go at least five feet".
"This ball goes at least five five feet."
"Therefore, this ball goes 10 feet"
Both of the first two premises are true, but the final premise is a non-sequitur. I think that's a fair analogy for your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
Nothing's wrong. Categorical imperatives are only institutional facts.
Created:
I like how this is basically a reversal of the Arg. from Disagreement
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
who are you on DDO? your style doesn't represent anyone I know. You certainly aren't Bsh1, Mikal, Roy, or Whiteflame.
He's blamonkey
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It's got very little to do with what is written in the book. It's really about not giving credibility to something that keeps people sick.
Sick with what?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you conflating "nihilist" with "moral-nihilist"?
Sure? My point about Christianity and morality was clearly about moral nihilism.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can do things without a moral reason to do them. . .
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What possible motive would a nihilist have for speaking to someone?
Because they want to?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A true nihilist would never speak to anyone.
I don't think that's true.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Heroin addictions aren't genetic.
Most of these issues come from bad psychology. That is my viewpoint
Right, because the God in the book said so.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
We can certainly choose to not go by our feelings. For example, anger is rarely a good thing to act on.
That's true. When did I dispute that?
People have natural sexual attractions. A lot of these attractions are difficult to wish away. That's all I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that we get to rape people or anything.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
It is lust and it is actually controlled
Okay, that's what I'm referring to. We're really getting down to semantics here. I'm referring to the immediate feeling, not the. . . whatever you're talking about.
The science despite your intuition is not in agreement on this point. There has been no study that says that homosexuality is genetic. Not one which has any substantial credibility. And one reason why it is often discredited by gay people is that - once we find a gay gene - then it will be a question of whether we turn it off or not.
I provided you with plenty of evidence for that conclusion. And I'm pretty sure you can determine that something is genetic without finding a specific gene. If we could find a gay gene, I don't see any reason why anyone would want to turn it off.
People do choose to be attracted to each other. I find your observation irrational. Surely you think "consent" is relevant or do you think it is only relevant when it comes to sex. Sex without consent is rape. Attraction is very close to sex. Not quite the same. Yet, if I don't want you to be attracted to me - yet you remain so - without your control - or choice - then you will become a stalker. You see people can choose how to respond to their attractions or not. I personally do CHOOSE whom I am attracted to or not. If others are not able to control themselves - that is a real problem. It simply means that our attraction is up to smells or to the time of the month or something else I am not in control of. The very next step is that sex - is like it is with the animals - non-consensual and rape is ok.
Sexual attraction, like all other feelings, is just a feeling. It doesn't imply action.
I've never heard anyone say that they can just stop a feeling of sexual desire at will like you can. If that's really the case, your experience probably doesn't apply to many other people.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
So what does finding someone else attractive mean? And why is it relevant?
Like an natural feeling of sexual urge brought on by a person. It's relevant because people try to say that the sort of immediate sexual urge that homosexuals have when they see men that have traits that are attractive to them is somehow all made up or something they can just not feel automatically. My intuition is that that's not very disputed by the science; you can't just not find someone hot. I'm not educated on this topic, but it'd be pretty damn weird that the human species populated if everyone had to choose to be attracted to someone. Why have sex at all then?
Brains seem to give us lots of natural inclinations that are independent of our rational process. It seems like sexuality is just another one of those inclinations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I think it's weird you can wind up with like 20 points from all "tie" votes.
Agreed. They should honestly change that it makes debate scores look so ugly
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Is it that I find other people desirable or nice? I can look at two females and find them both attractive to look at. But the attraction that we are talking about is more than just observing them both to be desirable. But say I do find myself attracted to one of them? What does that even mean? There have been people over the years that I have enjoyed company with - and spent significant time with. But I don't fantasize about them. That is clearly a choice.
Isn't that what theweakeredge means? He means that men are sexually attractive for him to look at. Not that he's fantasizing.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm wondering if inanimate objects should express evolution as do living organisms. The recent Twitter kerfuffle has prompted me to wonder if the powder-blue, sweety-tweety-bird image is entirely appropriate, given its new-found predatory nature. Shouldn't it evolve claws and a hooked beak?
Is this an argument against evolution?
Created:
Keep noticing this broader pattern of coincidence. . . theists always seem to turn to nihilists in a world without the existence of God. Why's it always them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In this post-modern age of deception, confusion, and truth relativity, someone has to point out the underlying philosophy of this age.Nihilism.
Why
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Clearly it bothers you when people don't hold the same theistic positions that you do. If that's true, why don't you leave
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Would you describe yourself as a utilitarian
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
essentially that there is some kind of perception where you have to get your morality from, and I get mine from the human perception of pleasure and suffering,
Ok got it. Making up metaethical terms can be confusing though especially when its already difficult to distinguish between the ones that do exist, so forgive me on that.
So when you say "pain/pleasure good/bad" do you consider that just a judgment you're making based on your feelings or one based on something that is true regardless of what someone thinks, like a mathematical statement? Or somewhere in between?
Created:
Posted in:
No idea and I honestly don't care, I am using the dictionary definitions and extrapolating from there, while a philosophic paper would also give me a basis for it, why can't the dictionary also be a basis?
There are many existing metaethical positions that deny the existence of morality as an objective fact i.e. relativism, skepticism, antirealism, noncognitivism. Saying that you believe its subjective doesn't really tell us what you mean by that. Could you elaborate?
Created:
Posted in:
Okay. . . what is "moral subjectivism". Who came up with that
Created:
Posted in:
Define what you mean specficially. I do not believe that morals can be justified by anything other than subjective values (i.e: things contingent on a mind), therefore I am a moral subjectivist
Do you believe that ethical statements express prepositions that are true/false based on the attitudes of people?
Created:
Posted in:
Why call yourself a subjectivist instead of an antirealist
Created:
-->
@Lemming
They seem pretty much the same to me, but maybe I'll think different after reading a bit.
Moral Realism: Morality objective, mind-independently true, has value
Moral Anti-Realism: Morality subjective/we made it up, still has value
Moral Nihilism/Skepticism: Morality subjective/we made it up, has no value
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I think that's moral anti-realism, not moral nihilism.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
ICE seems really shady to me. I don't know if the particular hysterectomy thing was anything more than 1 doctor but the Project South report as a whole seems to be pretty concerning.
Pretty sure that ICE has been condemned by the UN and the Holocaust Memorial Center for its treatment of immigrants. My impression is that the organization at least deserves a shit-ton more supervision
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I think proving yourself as a great debater requires a good amount of debates with people who know what they're talking about. Then you can't use charisma and immediate knowledge of various research to more or less cruise to victory.
I've watched plenty of Ben Shapiro destroys college liberal stuff. It's fun to watch. It is, intuitively, not a display of a debate-master at work.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I'd love to be enlightened, but I've never seen Ben debate a non-college student with a million times more research and thought-out arguments realized and at the ready. And the one time he did... It wasn't good for Ben.
EDIT: Deleted an exaggeration
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Could you do the rating system on me?
Created:
Posted in:
Literally no vote in that time period was registered for Trump out of 138k votes. There’s no concern! Lmao no there’s something shady. Many people have been plotting it since
Literally zero? I mean a lot of the votes in a given time period are going to go for Biden if they're counting absentee ballots
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It looks like Biden will squeak out a victory.
Yeah, I'd give it over 50%. We'll see though.
Created: