User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-21 at 12:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator You are avoiding the question by responding with an asinine non sequitur. Do you believe a term like "5 miles per hour" is meaningful?
What the lion or I believe is morally good is irrelevant to what is morally good.
Do you believe terms like quick or slow are meaningless?
What is morally good is relative. -
2019-04-21 at 12:35 PM UTC
-
2019-04-21 at 1:08 PM UTC
-
2019-04-21 at 1:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator You are avoiding the question by responding with an asinine non sequitur. Do you believe a term like "5 miles per hour" is meaningful?
What the lion or I believe is morally good is irrelevant to what is morally good.
Youre saing some words there. There is no objective morality. Mprality is subjective and relative to each individual. -
2019-04-21 at 1:48 PM UTCWe got through this already, rearguing is redundant.
LANNY RESPOND TO MY GODDAMN POST YOU INCOMPETANT RETARD.
You know nothing about what you spoke of, and are talking out your whole ass. -
2019-04-21 at 2 PM UTC
-
2019-04-21 at 2:19 PM UTC
-
2019-04-21 at 2:24 PM UTCGood and bad are relative just like quick and slow are relative.
-
2019-04-21 at 2:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't want to answer your questions. If you have a statement you want to make you should just make it instead of asking me dumb questions.
You don't want to answer the question because you are an idiot and your only game is to substitute retarded sophistry for any intellectual work.
I've already made all the statements I need to make, now all I need to do is demonstrate how your only repartee is demonstrably retarded. -
2019-04-21 at 2:30 PM UTC
-
2019-04-21 at 2:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator You don't want to answer the question because you are an idiot and your only game is to substitute retarded sophistry for any intellectual work.
I've already made all the statements I need to make, now all I need to do is demonstrate how your only repartee is demonstrably retarded.
I'm not a genius but I'm not an idiot. Why do you have this grudge against me? -
2019-04-21 at 2:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Moral good and bad are objective just like how 5 mph from one reference frame can be translated to any other reference frame.
Moral good and bad are relative just like how what is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle or what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare. -
2019-04-21 at 2:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I'm not a genius but I'm not an idiot. Why do you have this grudge against me?
No you're really incredibly stupid.
Originally posted by Obbe what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
That fact that you can make this statement in a single sentence supports my claim, not the idiotic notion of relativity you are presenting: you can know the speed of the tortoise and the hare, and the object moving at intermediate speed, and translate from one to the other without any problem. -
2019-04-21 at 2:51 PM UTCSomebody get me a cheeseburger!
-
2019-04-21 at 2:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator No you're really incredibly stupid.
That fact that you can make this statement in a single sentence supports my claim, not the idiotic notion of relativity you are presenting: you can know the speed of the tortoise and the hare, and the object moving at intermediate speed, and translate from one to the other without any problem.
Who denied that you can measure the speeds of the tortoise and the hare? Measuring their speeds doesn't change that what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare, or that what is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle. The tortoise is travelling at 0.63 miles per hour - whether or not this is quick or slow is relative. -
2019-04-21 at 3:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Who denied that you can measure the speeds of the tortoise and the hare? Measuring their speeds doesn't change that what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare
And you can talk about and account for both in one and the same conception.
[Qoute]or that what is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle.
Non sequitur.The tortoise is travelling at 0.63 miles per hour - whether or not this is quick or slow is relative.
Illiterate.
I already said it is relative. Being relative doesn't speak at all to being inherently subjective. -
2019-04-21 at 3:17 PM UTCI don't see the part where you're supposed to be disagreeing with me.
-
2019-04-21 at 3:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't see the part where you're supposed to be disagreeing with me.
The part where you can have a moral obligation whether or not you feel it, by the same mechanism by which the hare could recognize that what is slow for him is fast for the tortoise: by taking the common framework of speed. By whatever mechanism the lion identifies moral good, we can make a case for the gazelle and vice versa.
The fact that you are babbling about relativity doesn't change that. -
2019-04-21 at 3:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The part where you can have a moral obligation whether or not you feel it, by the same mechanism by which the hare could recognize that what is slow for him is fast for the tortoise: by taking the common framework of speed. By whatever mechanism the lion identifies moral good, we can make a case for the gazelle and vice versa.
The fact that you are babbling about relativity doesn't change that.
What is quick for the tortoise and slow for the hare doesn't change by imposing a framework over their experience. What is good for the lion and bad for the gazelle will always be relative, and making a case that they have certain moral obligations to each other doesn't change that. -
2019-04-21 at 4:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe What is quick for the tortoise and slow for the hare doesn't change by imposing a framework over their experience.
The very concept of moral good and evil is rooted in the framework, there is no morality in a vacuum. You either understand this and are ready to have a discussion or you don't, and you aren't.
The speed of the tortoise and the hare 8s objective. The speed of the intermediate object is objective. The quickness or fastness relative to either is objective. No part of this example remotely establishes subjectivity.What is good for the lion and bad for the gazelle will always be relative
Whether or not it's relative is irrelevant to whether or not it is objective.and making a case that they have certain moral obligations to each other doesn't change that.
It doesn't need to change that, it relies on the relativity. The fact is that you can make a case they have certain moral obligations to each other regardless of whether or not they feel it... That's the point.
