๐ป togepi ๐ป
Discord ID: 222528203237883904
664 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/7
| Next
!agree
>national sovereignty is bad
>lets fix it by making an even bigger sovereign state
> white christian rape gangs
you mean the catholic church?
> under communism there would be no better jobs
the last coherent argument i made was when atheism and christianity were the biggest ideological* conflict going on
> objective morality
> but when "god" does it its ok /s
just so you know im a subjective boi
facts or objective, but morality doesnt have an objective measure in facts
so is covering up a child sex ring because you are the diviner of objective morality good?
But they are the word of god on earth right?
then who gave you your objective moral code?
who wrote and moderated that?
How many people who claim to objective morality follow said morality completely?
the point of subjective morality is that you can judge right and wrong based on the situation, and make the best decision every time without adhering to any rigid code
so yes you can do right 100% of the time
If there is an objective code and you disagree with what it dictates in a situation, wouldnt that mean youve had a subjective thought?
so youve made a subjective decision
and have a subjective morality deep down
thanks for tagging every time btw
so you overrid the law, by your own judgement, but it is still objective, but you thought the wrong thing was right?
so you made a decision based on the situation on what is right
> subjective
so you can go beyond whats writin in the code
to make a decision
based on your values
^^
the thing is that subjective morality does not necessitate a proof
the whole idea is to think for yourself
if you say something is objective then it must be true regardless of opinion, which means a proof should exist
my position is that there is no proof for either
but you are claiming that your morality is objective, which means it can be prooved
paul yes actually
> set theory
yes actually
see above
> fuckin magnets how do they work
thats the meme
Let me spell it out
A set of discrete objects is countable and can represent a real number. Combining two sets represents adding two numbers, removing a subset from a set represents subtraction, etc.
Repeat for multiplication and division.
Objects have always been a thing, so yes math has always existed.
I will now ask you to read
I dont think you understand what math is
The addition and subtraction of objects is always true, even without observation.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, is there one less tree standing?
yes
If youre talking about us not accepting a proof for objective morality, you havent exactly put one forth
> its unprovable
> change my mind
and that is a sincere invitation
a series of well structured arguments that are logically consistent
> proof
yes ๐
lemme stop you right there
I have a beef with first mover
If nothing can move on its own, something must move first right?
so youre using first mover as a starting point
but you cant affirm when i restate it to you?
If nothing can move on its own, something must move first.
Things are moving.
Too bad gravity from one stationary object can move another stationary object.
but ill hear you out
do continue im intrigued
Gravity is a feature of reality itself, and nothing exists without reality, so we're on to first cause, which is my favorite.
Let me guess
> Something can't come from nothing
> Things are here
> Something must have come first
> Whatever came first must be special so it is a god who cares about our foreskins
My version
> Something can't come from nothing
> Things are here
> It seems like something came from nothing at some point
> I think its hydrogen
Not necessarily, because reality is infinite as far as we know, which makes it plausible that reality has always been a thing
In either case, subatomic particles coming from nothing is more likely than god coming from nothing
but yes i suppose those are the options
then what is the basis for your objective morality?
alright present your proof
so a universe that is amoral by definition does not exist?
do explain
> ontological
thats what paul is doing tho
it translates to: wordplay
Youre saying that "There are no moral claims" is a moral claim because it contains the word "moral"
But lets just define moral claim because i guess thats what were about these days
moral claim: a statement about what is right or wrong
"There are no moral claims" says nothing on the moral right or wrong of anything
It says nothing **about** right or wrong
so it is not a moral claim
It is not a statement about moral right or wrong.
So it is not a moral claim
Even if it were, all weve done is prove that "There are no moral claims" is the only moral claim that can exist
"There are no moral claims" does not say anything about the moral value of anything
misanalogy 5 yards
Nope youre still not get the level of detachment it has from the value of actions
a moral claim makes a statement about the right or wrong value of actions, "There are no moral claims" does not say anything about the value of actions
At this point weve been repeating our arguments to each other ad nauseum, so ill concede for fun
We have proven the claim "There are no moral claims" is a moral claim. Great! Now no other moral claims can exist. Thanks for cleaing that up
> appeal to some norm or standard
sounds pretty subjective to me
We'll connect when you make a non-contradictory statement
That describes perfectly well everything youve said
and an ontological (definition based) argument is not valid because it is based on language alone
If an argument to prove the existence of something is based on manipulating english language definitions, its not based on reality itself
> "There are no moral claims" is a moral claim
is an example of a bullshit ontological argument that doesnt really prove anything but that you can make little english paradoxes if you interpret things just right
then present your beautiful proof
> Can't except my assumptions so its unfair
your assumptions are bad get better ones
> Lets start with first mover
I almost fell outta my seat
its basically an assumption
yes but your theoretical deduction skills arent the sharpest rn
Its really fun too
Like when someone says there is an absolute morality all you have to do is find one contradiction
> I have an objective morality
> Sometimes I make exceptions that are a better choice in the situation
But you made a moral choice that you believed was right that went against it
> Cant wait to see the whole text of the bible dropped in here
> I propose the whole text of the bee movie as my alternative objective morality
> quoting my actions and other's actions with verb phrases
**bottom text**
664 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/7
| Next