No one is evil.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No I did not tank my own argument, I said there is objective morality, but everyone is incorrect about it to varying degrees, some much moreso than others.

In some societies their understanding of ****ing science is that if you do voodoo in a certain part of africa lightning will strike your enemies or some shit. We're not close to understanding everything scientifically in the west, but we're closer than that shit, and just because people or cultures disagree on things doesn't mean one isn't closer or further from the truth than the other or that there is no truth to be discovered. There are objective facts that people would argue against, and objective facts we are not remotely close to discovering, that doesn't mean objective facts do not exist.

Preconceived notions can be misleading. A baby at a certain age has the notion that there is no object permanence, that something only exists as long as they see it, just because that position is shaped by a preconceived notion doesn't mean it is as valid as any other position, and it doesn't mean the subject in question is solely a matter of opinion.

I mean **** if some dumbass thinks that if I give $2 to a person who already has $2 that they now have five dollars, does that mean math is relativistic and just a matter of opinion?

The notion of things influencing people's stances is pretty self-evident, as is the notion that people disagree on morality, what's not self-evident is the weird connection from point A to point B that you draw where you assume an admission that people disagree on something is evidence that there is not an objective answer to be reached. I mean **** by that logic there is no objective truth at all since I could get some contrarian ******* to disagree with anything anyone says, and therefore there'd be disagreement on it.

All your post tells me is that you did not understand what I was actually saying.

I have a hard time with the concept of Evil in the real world.

'Evil' strikes me as an abstract: a deliberate infliction of suffering, destruction and death on others for it's own sake. No other motive exists, like, say, seeking power so one can feel (consciously or otherwise) godlike, invincible, special, immune to death.

Since all living things seek power in one form or another-- biologically, psychologically, 'power' being defined here as that which reduces death terror -- IMHO real living things are incapable of exercising this type of absolute detachment from mortal concerns that conceptual Evil requires.

God knows, human beings try, but as long as people remain mortal, I don't see 'Evil' as truly existing in the human sphere, just our pale imitation (horrific in its own right) of the abstract.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No, your post tells me you did not understand what I was saying. But I'm not surprised. Lot's of cultures have different moralities, from lost tribes of Hunter-Gatherers to Aztecs, to attribute your western 20th-century values to the values they have and state a society's morality is more right than another without taking into account you as the observer and your preconceived worldview, culture and values, as well as your limited understanding of this is moronic.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
However, almost all your posts are incredibly simplistic. Both in language and ideas.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I disagree, I think my posts are intelligent and sophisticated.

Don't worry, we know.

I don't know why, but as soon as I posted that I got some weird sense that you were gonna pop in and reply to me with some snarky comment.

I wasn't being entirely serious with that statement though. That was more to make the point that you could undermine anyone's statement by his logic simply by disagreeing with the statement.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I disagree, I think my posts are intelligent and sophisticated.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
lot's

mmm

I had just woken up, spare me a typo or two.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No I did not tank my own argument, I said there is objective morality, but everyone is incorrect about it to varying degrees, some much moreso than others.

In some societies their understanding of ****ing science is that if you do voodoo in a certain part of africa lightning will strike your enemies or some shit. We're not close to understanding everything scientifically in the west, but we're closer than that shit, and just because people or cultures disagree on things doesn't mean one isn't closer or further from the truth than the other or that there is no truth to be discovered. There are objective facts that people would argue against, and objective facts we are not remotely close to discovering, that doesn't mean objective facts do not exist.

Preconceived notions can be misleading. A baby at a certain age has the notion that there is no object permanence, that something only exists as long as they see it, just because that position is shaped by a preconceived notion doesn't mean it is as valid as any other position, and it doesn't mean the subject in question is solely a matter of opinion.

I mean **** if some dumbass thinks that if I give $2 to a person who already has $2 that they now have five dollars, does that mean math is relativistic and just a matter of opinion?

The notion of things influencing people's stances is pretty self-evident, as is the notion that people disagree on morality, what's not self-evident is the weird connection from point A to point B that you draw where you assume an admission that people disagree on something is evidence that there is not an objective answer to be reached. I mean **** by that logic there is no objective truth at all since I could get some contrarian ******* to disagree with anything anyone says, and therefore there'd be disagreement on it.

All your post tells me is that you did not understand what I was actually saying.

I hope you really did just wake up, because to be honest this post you made? It's nonsense, lol. You can't use "two plus two equals four no matter what some retard says" as evidence that there is objective morality. They're entirely different disciplines. Some disciplines are harder/more objective than others. Science and math are more objective than, say, literary theory, for example.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You're trying to support the existence of an objective moral philosophy by using examples of objectivity rooted in science and math.

I hope you really did just wake up, because to be honest this post you made? It's nonsense, lol. You can't use "two plus two equals four no matter what some retard says" as evidence that there is objective morality. They're entirely different disciplines. Some disciplines are harder/more objective than others. Science and math are more objective than, say, literary theory, for example.

Basically, I wasn't drawing the comparison as proof for objective morality, I was drawing the comparison as proof that the notion that different people and cultures holding different stances on it is not evidence objective morality doesn't exist. He was acting like my admission that different people hold different stances undermines my argument because it's proof there's no correct stance.

You misunderstood the point I was making in my argument with him. He said I undercut my own stance with that admission, and I was explaining why that was retarded.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Except that wasn't evidence I was providing for the claim that objective morality exists, that was me suggesting Putinbot's claim that people disagreeing on the subject proves there is no objective basis for it is nonsense.

Basically, I wasn't drawing the comparison as proof for objective morality, I was drawing the comparison as proof that the notion that different people and cultures holding different stances on it is not evidence objective morality doesn't exist. He was acting like my admission that different people hold different stances undermines my argument because it's proof there's no correct stance.

You misunderstood the point I was making in my argument with him. He said I undercut my own stance with that admission, and I was explaining why that was retarded.

Putinbot was, from the beginning, talking purely about morality. You started bringing up science and other irrelevant shit as evidence against his statement on moral relativism, even though he wasn't really saying that morality is relative merely because other people disagree on certain things.

Which is frankly very low-tier debating and discussion by the way. Attacking people's points is very easy to do. I do it all the time while on the shitter in like three minutes or less. I'm doing it right now.

Supporting your points is quite a bit harder, but it is also more productive and rewarding, and I stress this because you apparently actually give a shit about having a real discussion on this shitty site.

I also am singling out you in particular because you are among the most moralistic people on this site. You act like a drama queen and call moral relativism "disgusting", but your actual attempts at supporting moral objectivism and decry relativism are not particularly compelling my friend.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You mean in your previous post, where you directly correlated moral law with scientific law, equivocating them?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Putinbot was, from the beginning, talking purely about morality. You started bringing up science and other irrelevant shit as evidence against his statement on moral relativism, even though he wasn't really saying that morality is relative merely because other people disagree on certain things.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I didn't use scientific law as evidence for the objectivity of morality, I merely said I viewed them in a similar way in that regard. That was supposed to be taken as a description of how I viewed morality rather than my explanation as to why, and you're misinterpreting it. It was a descriptive comparison, not the explanation behind the comparison.

I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm directly stating that viewing them similarly, which you've been doing all along, is erroneous.

Really then could you point out what he was using to claim it was in any of his posts?

Pretty much nothing. Putinbot wasn't doing a good job supporting his own perspectives either. 👆

But he's a crusty-ass old man too set in his ways to change and is quite possibly only really posting to troll you, so I feel no need to comment on his posts.

Because all I saw was him claiming that my admission that people disagree is evidence that there can be no objectivity to it. You can feel free to point something else out.

You're still really set on tearing down Putinbot, when you should be supporting yourself.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm directly stating that viewing them similarly, which you've been doing all along, is erroneous.

Pretty much nothing. Putinbot wasn't doing a good job supporting his own perspectives either. 👆

But he's a crusty-ass old man too set in his ways to change and is quite possibly only really posting to troll you, so I feel no need to comment on his posts.

You're still really set on tearing down Putinbot, when you should be supporting yourself.

I didn't delve into supporting objective morality because I was too lazy then and certainly am now at 3 in the morning, but I got drawn into the putinbot thing because he made the claim that I contradicted my own stance with a statement I made which I found ridiculous.

Originally posted by NemeBro

But he's a crusty-ass old man too set in his ways to change and is quite possibly only really posting to troll you, so I feel no need to comment on his posts.

🙄 As if either could be true.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
However, almost all your posts are incredibly simplistic. Both in language and ideas.

There’s a difference in variance of moral perspective and the notion that all moral perspectives are equally valid.

The way I view moral law is similar to scientific law. We do not fully understand it and nobody understands it perfectly, but there are some people and societies that approximate closer to the truth than others

Objective morality does not exist, our beliefs are based on how natural selection has caused are brains to evolve. Law with subjective basis simply cannot be objective.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Lal, are you good for anything other then calling other people stupid?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Your mum thinks so.

She does appreciate the way you keep the dog poop out of her lawn...But then most often you are the one that puts it there so....

And back to this thread..

If "No One is EVIL".....Should that mean that "NO One is GOOD"?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't know why, but as soon as I posted that I got some weird sense that you were gonna pop in and reply to me with some snarky comment.

You know, with the amount of times you've said this to me recently, somebody might get the idea that you think of me with every post.

Originally posted by NK-Syndrome
Not Osama Bin Ladin. Not Josef Stalin. Not even Hitler. They all are just different. They have their own way of thinking... And that's the way of thinking they developed.