Scroll down and look at bibliography in case you dont know how to get a source

Also nice primary source in Ukrainian which I can totally read

Whats wrong with Marxists.org?

>what's wrong with Marxists.org

Yeah, the name definitely doesn't give anything away

??? Argument not detected, initialize clown soundtrack

I am a marxist

Lol

You said that primary sources were cited

They weren't

Dont like my sources? Cool, go through and refute them

How many fucking websites to I need to jump around to get to one?

Not many, you want me to copy paste his description for you? The bibliography is usually within a few lines

I read through your dumb liberal historical revisionism

Put in some work if you want a legit debate bro

Well idk man you said the site you were providing had a primary source and it didn't so...

Wheres the aryan spirit??

Also you in no way had the time to read through everything I sent you so please stop lying

Yeah there are you just gotta click teice bro

So much for the tolerant right

Amazing

"Yeah bro, I read through pages and pages of sources you sent me in less than five minutes, I'm definitely not lying"

Im heading off for now, i gave you not only many good books I personally recommend, even a yt channel if youre a video conniseur

Its on you now to become literate

Ironic

Gn bro

nazbol is the communist version of a rydz smigly poster?

*What's wrong with marxist.org*

Yeah i probably am going to go out on a limb and say it's definitely going to be riddles with bias

^

i wouldnt be surprised if it was citing headlines from the pravda tbh

priests are gay

@Xul Mashtarak they touch little boys

Also that.

and then get moved to another church

Plutarco Calles did nothing wrong

*oh god no*

Addie's brain short circuited so hard the last time this was debated that he forgot he is wrong

bring Calles back to life

And here i am seeing this man with ideology roles, while i have one.

**Atleast he has ones which i identify with**

@Eoppa lol your argument was weird as fuck

and i had no idea what you were getting at

maybe you should explain it better

posting images does not count as explaining btw

damn

**Here we go again**

I posted the image to show the argument and said feel free to ask questions

id rather hear it in your own words because I like discussion

But I'll explain later bc I gtg for now

o ok

@Riley your an atheist right

yep @Veritas

@Riley ok so

you believe there is no god

I believe that there is no evidence for the existence of God, so I have no reason to assume he exists

so simplified

you believe there is no god

I generally don't say "oh yea there is no God" or "I don't believe in God" because then I get "How do you know"

ok

you know, gotta avoid those traps lol

yh

you mind if i send you a video to watch

via dms

sure, go ahead. Im in school tho so ill have to watch it later

yh is ok

@Veritas Ditto. I’m an atheist too. That meaning my default position is that there is no reason to believe in god, though if I were provided sufficient evidence of a higher powers existence I would not deny its existence, though I cannot guarantee I would worship it.

^

I just want the video

@Veritas

^

@DrRisen that’s agnostic

@Gоd Agnostic Atheism.

fagnostic gaytheism

You’re right theism is gay

Take the god pill, form an elightened society

No, @Gоd is right

Religion, like drugs, is for the weak minded

Cringe

Edgy atheist boy

Maybe a millennial

that’d be even more cringe

@Bogatyr Bogumir LMAO Imagine believing in primitive superstitions

ooga booga muh burning bush of the goat herders

Imagine not being able to crusade or having morality ROFLLMAO

hmm

@Spanish Inquisition @Shalopy @sandwitch @DrRisen do you guys want teh video

@Veritas Which video?

@sandwitch the video i sent to addie

No

@Bogatyr Bogumir i mean you can be moral without God

Just because I don't believe in God doesnt mean i am going around killing and raping

lmao

@Riley but that morality is completely arbitrary.

@The Desert Fox V they evolved from simple social skills

I was born with them

@Riley autistic people have a very distorted perception of sociality and the nature of man compared to normal people, so should our morals change for the mentally ill for example? Should we praise shooters as good?

If you say morals are what we have an aversion to, and are connected to nothing else, you are admitting what we are saying.

Existentialist explanations of morals are intrinsically nihilistic

I don't get why it's so hard for atheists to admit, even when they themselves are subjectivists.

uhh why would they change?

Exactly... if you can derive objectivity from evolution, then it wouldn't change, but it does by definition

You simply cannot derive morals under a materialist or existential framework

ok?

i don't know what your trying to say lmao

There is no atheistic argument against pedophilia, it's simply something you must train yourself to tolerate, which isn't hard granted the history of the pornography industry. Even just normal porn is inhumane and degenerate.

You keep saying someone can be "moral" (which implies something outside of the person) and an atheist at the same time, atheism is inherently nihilistic

```There is no atheistic argument against pedophilia```

Wtf?!

A child can't consent

So? Why does consent matter to us if it doesn't underly a real universal ethical framework?

Consent didn't matter to the Greeks

The golden rule. Do on to others as you want others to do to you. I know rape is wrong because I don't want to be raped.

Why should we follow that rule?

It's a good rule to avoid abuse by others or abusing others

If I go to China and preach many of these doctrines I will be sent to reeducation camps, should we submit to the state then rather than oppose these? Is that moral?

If morality is only tied to the ego, once again there is no argument against pedophilia

I mean, you have no choice but to submit to the state

But I don't think that law is moral

From my subjective morality

You don't think pro pedophile laws are moral because you have been programmed by a Christian mindset, we don't create our own morals, we inherit them. If you lived in Ancient Greece pedophilia wouldn't be a moral problem.

I would rather die a martyr than submit to China

If you had no inherited aversion to pedophilia, pornography, rape, etc it wouldn't be a problem.

And I know you all don't care about the morality behind CP and you are only saving face because many females in normal pornography don't consent to it yet you all will watch it.

In conclusion, atheism is pro pedophilia, and execute porn producers

Yeah, tbh I don't the golden rule is that good because if I was a criminal I would like not to be punished for a crime so therefore according to the golden rule people shouldn't be punished. It's hard to come up with one good moral system as an atheist.
But I don't believe that there is no "atheistic" argument against pedophilia lol

You don't need God to believe it is wrong

It's not that it's hard to come up with an overarching moral system, that would imply there are intrinsic goals to begin with. It is *impossible* to bridge the is-ought gap in the existentialist framework.

The closest thing would be absurdism, which states we should pretend to have morals for those dopamine releases, but that's how pedophiles get off

There is no atheistic argument against pedophilia because from a pure evolutionary perspective there is nothing wrong with it.

You absolutely need to be religious to have intrinsic morals.

Uh

To believe in objective moral truth does not require belief in god, even among educated folk

See platonism, kantian ethics, utilitarianism

Meanwhile, as an atheist & moral sentimentalist, I believe pedophilia is subjectively / subjectsively wrong and should be forbidden.

I'm unclear on what you mean by intrinsic morals

@primarina my original statement was "under an existentialist/materialist framework that the person I was addressing holds to, so those don't apply.

Ah, ok

Not really clear on existentialist or materialist philosophies, gonna go read up

And calling yourself a moral sentimentalist admits the problem I proposed

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether it would bc I was unclear on your point; can you clarify what you mean by intrinsic morals?

Intrinsic morals is the assertion that morals are a real feature of the world, and exist whether or not we percieve/believe them.

I don't read it that way

Intrinsic is a "to what" kind of word

Objective morality is a better way to say it imo

Morality can be intrinsic without being objective

*intrinsic to the subject*

Well intrinsic is used to mean it's a feature of something objective of our perception

You can't have intrinsic morals without objectivity

I disagree

I mean, morality can be intrinsic to the self; to some you cease to be you when your morality changes in certain ways

Or intrinsic to the holder of a character trait

Well that isn't what is referred to when we say intrinsic morality

I understand that the phrase has a distinct definition

But my point is it isn't equal to intrinsic + morality

I never said it was at all

So, my version fo the phrase is also valid

And I do think considering intrinsic subjective ethics is worthwhile

If I define fish to mean pants I can say I'm wearing fish but that isn't very conducive to a conversation

But that's very different from what I'm doing

I'm taking the meaning of the two words, to make a more literal version of the phrase

That's simply not what is done in philosophy, you take the meaning of it and then address that

You were trying to understand what I was saying and you change it to mean something else

U lads wanna continue arguing or can I post a religion qotd

Well, I'm taking the meaning of the words and addressing them, rather than just the meaning of the phrase

Telling me I can't use intrinsic literally, is kinda weird

That's just bad motives then

You address the meaning of the words rather than a literal denotation of it

I'm not arguing with your usage, I'm defending my usage of the component words to form a similiar phrase of distinct meaning.

You were arguing my usage actually

And pointing out how the phrase as you used it might mislead some people, and be ambiguous to others, the philosophic common term or not

<@&588707615643795456> Daily Question ✝

- Should the state actively support a religion? Should States have the right to engage in missionary work?

Yes

Its actually more ambiguous to use it your way primarina

The state should guarantee freedom of religion

Etymology also includes the usage of it historically, and that simply isn't it

Eoppa, non literal readings are inherently ambiguous as words / phrases have literal meanings

@GlobalDelete @Deleted User explain why

No

Primarina, read a book on linguistics

I accept your usage as a figure of speach

The state has no right to enforce a certain ideology or religion upon their citizens

cringe

The "literal" definition is based on it's common usage

But the common usage of the phrase is distinct from the common usage of the words

and the common process for combining words

I think there is serious hazard to rejecting that altertate literal interpretation / usage of the words

Intrinsic means in and of itself, aka objective, I don't see your problem here

There are multiple definitions of words you know?

But something can be intrinsic to the self

objective is no longer used as a synonym to intrinsic afaik

It *can* but that is a different definition hardly used ever if at all

So how is that less ambiguous

Um, the phrase is ambiguous

As to which interpretation to use

Literally I would be hard pressed to find that in any philosophical work or anything by laymen even

One may be more common, but it is also less accessible

Its actually more accessible

To philosophers who are used to using an abbreviation as a standin

Google "intrinsic morality"

google intrinsic then google morality

How do I disable pings

Morality in and of itself...

Or natural morality

Essential morality

These are all words also used to refer to an objective morality

Dude, intrinsic morality is clearly a shorthand, with a meaning that isn't a literal combination of those two words

Yes it is a literal combination

That morals are intrinsic to reality rather than not being so

Yeah, intrinsic to reality, not merely intrinsic to 'unspecified'

There's a **big** difference

I choose to read that phrase as involving an omission

So that I can use the familiar meanings of the words involved.

The definition is "naturally" that implies it's reality

Um, what

"Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

```belonging naturally; essential```

And...?

Natural implies nature, as in natural law and such

Why do you need this phrase to be a literal combination of the two words?

Is it really such a big concession?

I don't, it just isn't ambiguous

Well, I made an argument that it is

You made one that it isn't, and I'm really not buying it.

Just because one could possibly use a definition that no one has used before doesn't make it ambiguous

Again;

Your words have many other definitions also that you don't intend

Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent. (google)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

Yes?

Do you know how essential and natural are used in philosophy

Have you read up on natural law or essentialism?

Look at the webster page

My model allows for both versions of the phrase to make sense, by explaining your version as involving an implicit omission.

You have no model, you called mine "not literal"

Which it clearly is

So, from websters intrinsic

And morality

Is saying objective morality ambiguous because objective can mean unbiased?

You described an argument for those definitions leading to "morality intrinsic to reality"

It is to some people who are uneducated, but we don't worry about that because both versions are so widely used, and are also closely related.

Now how about *the only use* of intrinsic morality

Arguably, the word can be taken to have the same meaning in both cases, and the differences explained with omission

We shouldn't worry about it

Non bias in a person's view, and being q real feature of reality isn't synonymous

The danger here is people are at greater risk of being mislead

Do you think people have an IQ of 2