Well yeah it's generally pretty safe to eat now so there is no real reason not to other than following the original justification

Plus Islam fucking violent

Kill an infidel you get rewarded In heaven. Be gay, you get thrown off a roof

violence was pretty much their only option to get those things out of society

well to keep them out

Yeah well it doesn’t justify their sheer, violence, nor should it be allowed in the west

Well the moral question would be: at what point is violence justified to conserve a society and when is it not?

People in the west will actively use violence to protect someone's rights for example, and it even used to be the opposite. Muslims will use violence to protect their rights as well even though their rights are different.

I bet you guys don't know anything about Islam.

Not what is written in their scripture.

Dude I’ll be ok with Islam when there are less beating husbands and women keep their Cliterus

Morals are subjective. Wife beating is seen as morally right if it is justified by arguably most people in the world.

not really so in the west

They've done experiments on this specific thing

and surveys

Morals aren't subjective.

there is a good book on morals called the righteous mind by jonathan haidt

they absolutely are

Are you a nihilist or an anti-realist?

Ok what’s going on here

Oh fuck it’s throttles oh god oh fuck

I've heard the partners in crime argument is good.

But I like the one from epismetic norms.

The one that goes
1) If moral norms don't exist, then epismetic norms do not exist.
2) epismetic norms do exist
3) Therefore moral norms do exist
4) Therefore moral realism is true

Like the moral responses in india vs the united states are quite different for many topics.

Just because it's practiced differently doesn't mean morals are subjective.

One of the questions was like is it okay to beat your wife if you tell her you will beat her if she does something.

and like 90% of india said it's morally right

Adhering to objective morals is more pragmatic as well.

Yeah I don't get how that proves morals are subjective?

I really don’t care if they are objective, Islam is a cancer to civility

Or subjective

Morality is an abstract property, meaning it doesn't exist in space-time.

everything is abstract and doesn't necessarily exist in space-time

it's a pointless argument

within the model or common paradigm in which most people view the world, morality is subjective

No, not everything is abstract. That's false, material objects are not abstract.

And we don't go off collective opinion.

That's a fallacious appeal to authority.

Things are only true if multiple people agree that they are.

and they are only true within that partnership

Lol what..

That's not right man.

most people on earth would agree that the sky appears to be blue so it's only true because they are in a collective agreement

Half of the human population live in rural areas and do not have access to education, let's say they thought this bizarre thing that 1+3 = 2

This does not mean it is correct.

an alien may see in a totally different spectrum and say that no, in fact the sky is <insert color here>

Human perception is incredibly limited

we are incapable of knowing objective truths

period

No we do know absolute proofs.

Which exist in maths.

absolutely not

Lol yes.

1+1 = 2

This is an absolute proof.

math is entirely arbitrary

No it's not.

Do you know what that means?

it's a man made system of logic

That doesn't make it subjective.

Laws of logic are principles.

there are laws to the universe but their true nature is totally outside of our comprehension

math is a model

a man made model that we use to try and understand some of the patterns we think we observe in the universe

So that means they're objective.

Since they exist outside human minds.

the laws of the universe are objective but we are incapable of having an objective understanding as humans

math is intrinsic to the universe

<:milady:591248801189330944>

everything can be quantified

nah

If it is humans were are talking about then yes

You know what axioms are?

I mean no

wait

yes

I am confusion

Humanity cannot be predicted

Can you quantity honour?

now that's better

I don't think you understand the meaning of objective.

do you know what super string theory and QED QCD?

Or according to big brains does that not exist

@Alexstrasza Get out of here if you're not discussing.

He said you could quantify everything

I pointed out how that’s not true

Everything can be quantified, just not by humans

what cannot be quantified?

Honour

GG @Alexstrasza, you just advanced to level 1!

everyting from throwing a baseball, to super navae can be translated into numbers

Can you translate honour into numbers?

honor is a human construct a chemical reaction

it would be something other than numbers, numbers are just a primitive way of understanding these things

yes numbers, constants through out the universe

@Pelth We can quantify things though, using maths.

Something that sortof correlates with numbers as we see them, but numbers are limited

Human reasoning is objective, since it follows logic.

even planets billions of light years awway are made of protons quarks and strings too

Positive statements are objective.