1. Repeating facts is the subjective repetition of facts.
2. Utilising facts in one's reasoning is the subjective inclusion of facts as subjective reasoning.
3. Morality is a variable concept relative to human behaviour and expectations.
All three are individual bits of subjective processing, relative to an individual processing unit's assessment of acquired data.
I would suggest that to hold that morality is objective is to assume that we are connected to and governed by a greater data source. I would further suggest that this is what underpins Tarik's reasoning and their somewhat obsessive adherence to a the idea of an objective morality.
Which is not to be able to hypothesise that we are all connected to a greater matrix of absolute data. Though from a general position of assumed disconnection, hypothesising is the epitome of subjectivity.
I would suggest that all such debates arise from basic a lack of understanding; in so much as we do not know why we exist.
Therefore, we also do not know how we should conduct ourselves within the context of the greater unknown.
That is not to confuse the greater unknown with the World of people.
Not forgetting that there are others here who we tend to disregard or consider less worthy; who nonetheless as separate species have varied approaches to what we might consider to be basic moral principles, but who's actions remain inherently consistent.
One of the problems that I have with human intellect especially with regard to constructs such as morality, is ongoing conscious inconsistency and changeability.
As far as I am aware there is no evidence other than species bias, to suggest that hominid intellect is any more special than what it basically is....A species speciality.
So acquired functions and processes afford us a connection of sorts to other people, though our thoughts and responses still remain wholly self contained.
So for me, irrespective of the shared veracity of data (fact), all individual data analysis is still a self contained process. (Subjective)
Also, as far as I am aware, we are not subliminally programmed with universal knowledge from a greater and indisputable universal source; though some might argue this.
Though such hypotheses are wholly internal and subjective.....In my opinion.
Shared hypothetical subjectivity can create a standard, but does not validate the claim, especially in the absence of total agreement or physical evidence.
Based upon the reliable old adage, I think therefore I am. There are undeniably a host of subjective GODS, that exist as internal data management, and can also be expressed as data output.....Not the same as an actual existent floaty about bloke.
Keane are too soft. Oasis are OK.... I prefer Coldplay from that era, they're a classier stadium act.
I prefer bands from much earlier like Yes, Pink Floyd and Genesis. And a bit later on I was really into Dire Straits and very early Queen.
At the moment I listen to Steve Hackett a lot (Ex Genesis)...Check out some of his live performances of tracks like Suppers ready, Firth of Fifth and Shadow of the Heirophant.
I also like Jon Andersons (Ex Yes) Icelandic concert performances with Todmobile and Orchestra.
And then there's Klaus Schultz, Tangerine Dream, King Crimson etc etc.
And I also love listening to Alanis Morissette. I think she has a very special voice.
Oddly perhaps, I always thought that the Beatles and Rolling Stones were pretty naff...And David Bowie.
As for classical....The genre is so broad...There's so much good music to discover..
If the Monkey is "constantly facing the man", then the Monkey must go around the pole simultaneously with the man, therefore the man never actually goes around the monkey, but only around the the pole. For the man to go around the monkey, the monkey would need to be stationary....Compare it to a geostationary satellite as opposed to an orbiting satellite.
In my opinion....Debate is as about a persons ability to present a coherent and persuasive argument...... In this instance, even though the proposition should have been irrefutable, you failed to make it so. Your evidence and explanation was counterproductive.
"Killing of an adult human because he desires to die".
Need to work on this definition a tad.
"Suicide bombers".
Are not nihilists,
What can one say,
Other than.
Crazy human mind stuff.
Objective morality?
Blow a raspberry.
If one is sentient and still alive then nihilism is simply a hypothetical contradiction for the sake of it.
Philosospeak as it were.
1. Repeating facts is the subjective repetition of facts.
2. Utilising facts in one's reasoning is the subjective inclusion of facts as subjective reasoning.
3. Morality is a variable concept relative to human behaviour and expectations.
All three are individual bits of subjective processing, relative to an individual processing unit's assessment of acquired data.
I would suggest that to hold that morality is objective is to assume that we are connected to and governed by a greater data source. I would further suggest that this is what underpins Tarik's reasoning and their somewhat obsessive adherence to a the idea of an objective morality.
Which is not to be able to hypothesise that we are all connected to a greater matrix of absolute data. Though from a general position of assumed disconnection, hypothesising is the epitome of subjectivity.
I would suggest that all such debates arise from basic a lack of understanding; in so much as we do not know why we exist.
Therefore, we also do not know how we should conduct ourselves within the context of the greater unknown.
That is not to confuse the greater unknown with the World of people.
Not forgetting that there are others here who we tend to disregard or consider less worthy; who nonetheless as separate species have varied approaches to what we might consider to be basic moral principles, but who's actions remain inherently consistent.
One of the problems that I have with human intellect especially with regard to constructs such as morality, is ongoing conscious inconsistency and changeability.
As far as I am aware there is no evidence other than species bias, to suggest that hominid intellect is any more special than what it basically is....A species speciality.
So acquired functions and processes afford us a connection of sorts to other people, though our thoughts and responses still remain wholly self contained.
So for me, irrespective of the shared veracity of data (fact), all individual data analysis is still a self contained process. (Subjective)
Also, as far as I am aware, we are not subliminally programmed with universal knowledge from a greater and indisputable universal source; though some might argue this.
Though such hypotheses are wholly internal and subjective.....In my opinion.
Shared hypothetical subjectivity can create a standard, but does not validate the claim, especially in the absence of total agreement or physical evidence.
Hello.
I had hoped that you would present your third round as quickly as the first two.
I will be away from my computer until Sunday evening 16-4-23 and it is now unlikely that I will have chance to reply before then.
My apologies if I should unintentionally have to forfeit round 3.
Regards Zed.
Definitions are rarely absolute.
So there's Muslims and then there's Muslims.
Islam is the collective noun.
Can you give me lists of 20 things that are sin and 20 things that aren't.
Interesting use of the plural.
In my opinion it would only ever be sensible to sell a kidney.
Therefore in a civilised society it would perhaps be reasonable to not allow anyone to sell their kidneys.
In themselves, things are themselves.
Therefore in itself, child sex abuse is child sex abuse.
And by definition abuse is harmful.
Votes requested.
Con provides absolutely nothing of substance and Pro provides 3 rounds of relative substance.....It's a no brainer, as well you know.
Someone whinges and the vote get's removed.
Is it any wonder that no one bothers to vote.
D******D
There was more I wanted to add about the conspiracy thing and it's chains chains of command, but I just ran out of time.
Of course, I don't believe that the Earth is flat for a minute.
A good mental exercise though.
Sorry again. Didn't apologize to the right person.
Sorry...Forgot to tick the Con button.
But that GOD is.
Even if that GOD externally isn't.
I don't expect that there are many people who haven't heard of such a GOD.
Based upon the reliable old adage, I think therefore I am. There are undeniably a host of subjective GODS, that exist as internal data management, and can also be expressed as data output.....Not the same as an actual existent floaty about bloke.
So what sort of "no GOD" are you proposing.
Keane are too soft. Oasis are OK.... I prefer Coldplay from that era, they're a classier stadium act.
I prefer bands from much earlier like Yes, Pink Floyd and Genesis. And a bit later on I was really into Dire Straits and very early Queen.
At the moment I listen to Steve Hackett a lot (Ex Genesis)...Check out some of his live performances of tracks like Suppers ready, Firth of Fifth and Shadow of the Heirophant.
I also like Jon Andersons (Ex Yes) Icelandic concert performances with Todmobile and Orchestra.
And then there's Klaus Schultz, Tangerine Dream, King Crimson etc etc.
And I also love listening to Alanis Morissette. I think she has a very special voice.
Oddly perhaps, I always thought that the Beatles and Rolling Stones were pretty naff...And David Bowie.
As for classical....The genre is so broad...There's so much good music to discover..
No problem.
Just another honest vote.
Tastes vary.
I'm more into Prog Rock and Certain Classical stuff.
Would be fun to see you and BPD do a classic battle.
No Problem.
Though I wasn't unpleased previously.
In fact I did say that you chose my favourite track.
I simply made a subjective 5 against 5 decision, based solely upon the music.....Same as any voter should.
I was invited to vote and I took the time to do so.
So why should you have won and not BPD?
Why are you the superior Rap critic?
If you want a lengthy appraisal give me a day or two....But the outcome will be the same.
I devoted precious time listening to all 10 tracks this morning. And as I stated, I rated track against track, based solely on aural effect.
My decision was honest and sincere.
"Troll" is a cheap insult.
I regard your remarks as nothing more than sour grapes.
Ok. I will listen tomorrow and give an honest judgement, of which song in each pair appealed the most.
Belief should not be condemned......No matter how "vague" the basis of a belief might be.
If the Monkey is "constantly facing the man", then the Monkey must go around the pole simultaneously with the man, therefore the man never actually goes around the monkey, but only around the the pole. For the man to go around the monkey, the monkey would need to be stationary....Compare it to a geostationary satellite as opposed to an orbiting satellite.
Think about it.
There is a simple difference between going around a monkey on a pole, and going around a monkey.
If the monkey is constantly facing the man, then the man cannot go around the monkey.
The man can only go around the monkey on the pole.
Bugger all to do with physics.
In my opinion....Debate is as about a persons ability to present a coherent and persuasive argument...... In this instance, even though the proposition should have been irrefutable, you failed to make it so. Your evidence and explanation was counterproductive.
Religions tend to adhere to a typical format.
Something to ritually worship and embellish unnecessarily.
I will be interested to see if either of you can come up with something new.
The Drone pilot however remote is the one that decides to release the bomb.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. it was an interesting subject.
I only debate occasionally and primarily only for fun, and with no regard to winning or loosing....Though I do take the content seriously.
Best of luck.
Whiteflame the new dictator issues another decree.
My comment was appropriate given the subject matter....More whingers methinks.
The debate was read and judged appropriately.
If I had presented a million word analysis, my vote would still have been the same.
Something of a sham voting system if all it takes to remove a vote is for someone to whinge.
It is the content of the debate that should be judged, not the content of the vote.
A vote is a vote and reflective of ones appreciation of both sides of the debate.
If it is a dissertation that is required, then give me a day or two.
If you are a discerning person, then you should understand the gist of my comments in relation to how the debate unfolded.
Probably better to have ditched the description and stuck with stopped clock.
Yep...Good idea.
4 Years or Life.....Both Term limited.
I would suggest that we are instinctively motivated not to abstain.
So teaching kids to abstain from intercourse, is as much a part of sex education as contraception is.
Perhaps we should also teach kids that all other forms of gratification are fun rather than taboo.... When done safely and within the law of course.
And keep religion out of schools!
Are you Donald Trump?
Your above description, is uncannily Trump like.
What does "Greater" mean in this context?
You should be proposing, that nuclear fuel is safer than fossil fuel.
Hey...It's not a big deal.
Jasmine cut her hair.
The poetry was fun.
The debate was never going to be
A serious one.
Thanks for taking the time to vote.
If you click on Jasmine's link
You will see before and after
I think.
Nice.
It's an allegory about modern expectations.
I can handle a 1000 characters.
I would suggest that Pro's argument was satirical, rather than comedic.......And therefore should be regarded as philosophical.
And Jasmine...I'm already writing a book entitled Bob....So when I'm rich and famous, please don't sue me for breach of copyright.
What would be your definition of what isn't natural?
In "theory" anything can do anything...Getting things to do stuff in reality is a whole different ball game.
Though "can" do, is a whole different ball game to might do.
What about ugly women.
Or more importantly, how do you differentiate?
And what about beautiful or ugly lesbians?
And can a women not do both, career and sexual partner?
Isn't it the family thing that fucks up careers?
Is ethical not as contrived as unethical?
Why are ethics ethical?
Does an atheist believe in atheism or not believe in theism?
If one discovered an egg, how would one know that it was extra-terrestrial and not an as yet undocumented species?
Or does the scenario extend to deep space exploration?