Message from @JogaFlame
Discord ID: 487116779597070336
Wait is the high IQ not meant to be a sarcastic joke role
That's only avoiding and prolonging.
You can apply this to questions towards consciousness, religion, and so on.
A yellow bar over a post does not assign it any special significance Otter.
YOU CANNOT ANSWER A QUESTION BASED ON A FLAWED PREMISE
Of course you can't,
THERE'S NO SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE DISTINCTION IN ETHICS
that still dosen't mean you can't at least give some feasible answer.
?warn @Deleted User Rule 3
<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***ostentatiousotter#3068 has been warned.***
Useless mods are useless
HOW CAN I NOT BE IN A FIT OF RAGE WHEN EVERYONE IS DEFENDING TOTAL IGNORANCE
You just triggered the most intelligent and cultured man in Europe.
I need to read the rules again lmao
Do you have any idea what you've done?
What Zexy said
He has a PhD br0
They are literally saying it's okay to blissfully ignore that the entire FRAMEWORK OF THE QUESTION is INCORRECT and someone should STILL TRY TO ANSWER IT. NO NO NO NO NO NO
I personally believe that Otter here has perhaps interpreted the question in such a way that it's creating a paradox.
There's nothing to answer.
It's very simple
Can't wait until otter reaches honored citizen
!rank @Deleted User
Even if considered incorrect, there's nothing that can disprove or prove that answer.
It's just there,
as a answer.
RELATIVISM in ethics typical refers to CULTURAL RELATIVISM
it has nothing to do with utilitarian premises
those ARE UNIVERSAL arguments based on A CONSEQUENTIAL premise
what irma wants to argue for is DEONTOLOGICAL ethics
@Deleted User if you want to emphasize something, use *italics*
Not CAPS
Every post a Ben Shapiro YouTube video title.
which she mislabeled as ***objective***
furthermore, there are many kinds of ***deontological*** arguments
so why did she single out ONE particular form of consequentialism?
Ben Shapiro sodomizes a homeless person with a broken glass bottle
yet she did not single out one particular kind of deontological argument?
all of your obserations are irreleant