```
21
Socialist who supports high market freedom and decentralization of authority+states rights, primarily Consequentialist with Deontological elements.
Learn about debate, philosophy, and politics.
Prefer not to answer
California
Atheist - Anti-theist
Clear Quid Pro Quo, concerning violation of establish norm.
```

<@&615448280268144642>

Serious question, why are satanism and anti-ukranian sentiments the only automatic ban behaviors?

Ayy

So, what's this server generally like?

... very clearly a Hammer and Sickle

What

I can't change my nickname

Rip that

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

Ah, ok

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

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

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*

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

I understand that the phrase has a distinct definition

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

So, my version fo the phrase is also valid

And I do think considering intrinsic subjective ethics is worthwhile

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

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

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

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

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

I accept your usage as a figure of speach

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

But something can be intrinsic to the self

objective is no longer used as a synonym to intrinsic afaik

Um, the phrase is ambiguous

As to which interpretation to use

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

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

google intrinsic then google morality

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

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.

Um, what

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

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

And...?

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

Is it really such a big concession?

Well, I made an argument that it is

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

Again;

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

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

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.

So, from websters intrinsic

And morality

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.

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

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

My interpretation is likely the interpretation of the common man

You shouldn't use the intelligence of others as a crutch, rely on it when necessary

Except, my version of the phrase is also valid

You clarfied what you meant, and I accepted that meaning

Or they'd ask you for clarification

Because they don't assume you're without fault

and / or possibly have a bad internet connection at the moment, ioi

You clarified your point, I talked about I didn't read it that way, and how I took issue with the language

You then clarified that it was a term of art

And took issue when I tried to use the component words in other ways; morality intrinsic to the subject

I wanted to address other uses because they were how I intended to make my point

I believe there can be morality intrinsic to the subject, and I believe that language for describing them is permissible and proper.

Why is whether I can something the way I choose to say it immaterial?

The point I wanted to make was primarily about intrinsic subjective morality and language usage solutions

Intrinsic subjective morality is distinct from non-intrinsic subjective morality

To your end, not to mine.

TBF, one goal of mine was to question why objective morality has value, and why objective morality is necessary to reject pedophillia

Ah, I see the distinction "There is no *atheistic* argument against pedophilia because from a pure evolutionary perspective there is nothing wrong with it."

tbf that's pretty ambiguous to someone who hasn't read certain texts

Even if they wikipediad it or dictionaried it

Yeah, but I'm one of those people and I read it

ya, cya ❤

how sfw does this need to be

Disarmament treaties sound lit

A fundamental role of government is services that cannot be gotten more effectively on a well-free market.

Where is this test

There’s a big difference between nationalistic and globalistic societies, this isn’t a thing to form a quick, uneducated opinion on.

How about requiring phone # to join?

https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/why-competition-in-the-politics-industry-is-failing-america.pdf