zoo's are fundamentally wrong

1. 2016-05-13 at 8:02 PM UTC

   #1
   

   kroz weak whyte, frothy cuck, and former twink
   Because animals not only have to preform, but they are put on display for their most intimate moments, (we the people live in a zoo aka aliens and the nsa) and they are forced to be in captivity, like myself. I'm regarded in my county as nothing more that an animal that they try to domesticate, but the thing they realize is that I will always do my thing. I will always drink beers and fling poop at my enemies.
   
   They say never stare a monkey in the eyes, I've learned the hard way , yet I will still do it.
   
   
2. 2016-05-13 at 9:04 PM UTC

   #2
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
   Right and wrong are subjective, nothing is inherently right or wrong, therefore you are a faggot.
3. 2016-05-13 at 10:11 PM UTC

   #3
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   op dun got wrekt
4. 2016-05-13 at 10:51 PM UTC

   #4
   Guided Yung Blood

   Right and wrong are subjective, nothing is inherently right or wrong, therefore you are a faggot.

   
   
   Citation needed. I find it amusing that subjectivists tend to posit their subjectivism as objectively true. Can you give an argument for your facile claim?
5. 2016-05-13 at 11:43 PM UTC

   #5
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
   I can try. Morality is all in your head. Therefore it isn't objective. Does that work?
6. 2016-05-14 at 12:58 AM UTC

   #6
   Guided Yung Blood
   No, it doesn't.
   
   Your argument, reorganized, with the missing pieces, is:
   
   Everything that is "all in your head" is subjective.
   Morality is all in your head.
   Therefore, morality is subjective.
   
   Firstly, you'd need to define objective and subjective in such a way that everything that is "all in your head" (another phrase that would need defining) is subjective. Obviously logically you could do this, but I'm not as sure you could do so and keep the common definition I suspect you meant in your first point. Moreover, I think it would force many more things than you wish to be considered "all in your head", and therefore make more things subjective then you intend. Please define objective and subjective, and what it means for something to be "all in your head".
   
   After you do this, you must prove the second line; somehow show that morality is something "all in your head" according to the definition you give it.
7. 2016-05-14 at 2:04 AM UTC

   #7
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
   Before I do that, will you give us some examples of what you believe is inherently or objectively right or wrong?
8. 2016-05-14 at 2:10 AM UTC

   #8
   Guided Yung Blood
   No, because I've made no claims contrary to those you've made. It is only you who have stated claims, and they are so far unsupported, and worse, undefined.
9. 2016-05-14 at 3:55 AM UTC

   #9
   Ajax African Astronaut [rumor the placative aphakia]
   I walk around nude with my blinds open and I don't even care. I figure I'm doing the world a favor by not charging admission.
10. 2016-05-14 at 4:19 AM UTC

    #10
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]

    No, because I've made no claims contrary to those you've made. It is only you who have stated claims, and they are so far unsupported, and worse, undefined.

    
    If you're not going to claim anything contrary to what I stated then I'm not going to build any supporting arguments for my statement because I couldn't care less.
11. 2016-05-14 at 6:41 AM UTC

    #11
    Guided Yung Blood
    I've wasted my time coming here. Farewell.
12. 2016-05-14 at 4:18 PM UTC

    #12
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality." Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'. What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects. Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.
13. 2016-05-14 at 5:12 PM UTC

    #13
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    I've wasted my time coming here. Farewell.

    
    
    lol, comes into a discussion, gets pwnd, leaves (but not rly)
14. 2016-05-14 at 6:28 PM UTC

    #14
    

    Lanny Bird of Courage

    Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective.

    
    Most moral theorists would disagree with that. If you're taking that to be your definition of morality from the outset them you're the one wasting our time with semantic games because it's not what the vast majority of people mean when they talk about morality.
    
    

    There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory.

    
    Sure, but something like, say, mathematics can not be tested in a laboratory or observed in nature (inb4 nautilus shell, that's an observation of a pattern in nature that's elegantly expressible in mathematics. It's not the same thing as seeing mathematics, in itself, in nature) but we wouldn't call it subjective.
    
    

    They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points.

    
    You realize that neither metaphysics nor epistemology are actually philosophies right? They're fields within philosophy, containing a wide range of competing theories. In fact you're practicing (bad) metaphysics in this thread right now. You should probably try to, you know, learn what words mean before you use them.
    
    

    Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

    
    Again, just wildly not true, I don't even think that works as a sentence.
    
    

    What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects.

    
    Thanks webster, but I'm not seeing how this relates to anything you're saying. Even if you only look at philosophies that do take morality to be knowable a priori (which is not exhaustive of moral theories by any means) I don't see how throwing a definition of the term a priori is supposed to prove anything
    
    

    Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.

    
    So how do you account for the wide range of actions that are considered societally acceptable yet by many to be morally impermissible? Almost anyone with an idea of what morality is will assert prohibitions or duties above and beyond social acceptability. Most christians would say things like respecting your parents or showing compassion to strangers is a moral good even if not all societies. So if morality is socially defined then how can members of a society have moral beliefs contrary to the society they live in?
15. 2016-05-14 at 10:38 PM UTC

    #15
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    I actually didn't write any of that LanMan.
16. 2016-05-15 at 12:59 AM UTC

    #16
    

    Lanny Bird of Courage
    who did then?
17. 2016-05-15 at 1:31 AM UTC

    #17
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    I went to Debate.org and searched for "morality is subjective" and just picked out one persons opinion in a poll.
    
    In my own opinion what is right and what is wrong is a matter of perspective or opinion. I don't see how anything could be right or wrong without someone there to subjectively considering the thing to be right or wrong.
18. 2016-05-15 at 2:14 AM UTC

    #18
    

    Lanny Bird of Courage

    I don't see how anything could be right or wrong without someone there to subjectively considering the thing to be right or wrong.

    
    Two easy ways to disagree with that are that moral laws are fundamental to our universe. It's generally uncontroversial that unaware things can do wrong or be bad (plague is bad, yet plague has no consciousness or moral agency). For plagues to be bad we may need moral agents to exist but that doesn't mean they're subjective or that their badness is. Similarly mass extinction of complex life would result in a world where nothing is around to subjectively experience the wrongness of it and yet we can consider such a world and most of us would deem such genocide to be wrong.
    
    The other would be to claim moral laws are emergent from conscious populations but not subjective: regardless of the beliefs of such populations their constituents' obligations to one another remain unchanged. Something in the nature of certain types of consciousness brings about morality inevitably. So we can look at abstract objects, regardless of what ontological status you grant them, as a similar example of something which is objective, or minimally non-subjective, and yet which owe their status entirely to subjective perception in a similar way to how we might propose a constructivist model of ethics.
    
    It would seem like you need to refute both those major branches of moral realism before you can justify moral subjectivism.
19. 2016-05-15 at 6:48 AM UTC

    #19
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    I submit the postulate that if we disregard all previous nonsense we can collectively conclude that zoo's are fundamentally zoo's.
20. 2016-05-15 at 7:04 AM UTC

    #20
    

    Lanny Bird of Courage
    If some nigga was like "here, come not worry about any survival pressures and just chill the fuck out taking it easy and straight up DGAFing for the rest of your life" I'd be all over that shit, zoo like if the tits