User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2019-04-24 at 12:52 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator "What's good" is absolute
If that were true, saying "what's good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle" would be false. But you known that is not false.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator I'm literally taking Sam Harris's position 1:1 from his book "The Moral Landscape" and following his line of "there are no oughts, only is" to apply it to this conversation. I primarily just wanted to confirm that you don't actually understand his position, nor do you understand how you have to relinquish one or the other.
I haven't read that book, I don't know what Sam's position is on morality, and I dont know why you think I care. I read one of his books, that doesn't mean I know anything else about him or care to. Seems irrelevant to our discussion here. Your job right now is to convince me that goodness and badness is not like quickness or slowness. Change my mind.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Where it goes from this point is your choice.
ok there morpheus -
2019-04-23 at 6:57 PM UTC in BBS Are dying, Anything fun left?
-
2019-04-23 at 6:56 PM UTC in Freeplay CM3
-
2019-04-23 at 6:55 PM UTC in Freeplay CM3
-
2019-04-23 at 6:52 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What's good for the loom is not necessarily morally good, and vice versa
"What's good" is always relative. Just like what is quick. There is no objective goodness or quickness. Speed can be objectively measured but a specific speed is not objectively quick or slow. Similarly maybe your loom needs 3 meters of yarn but but that isn't objectively good or bad. It's goodness or badness is relative to something else. Prove it isn't. -
2019-04-23 at 4:28 PM UTC in Freeplay CM3My freeplay cm3 kit arrived in the mail yesterday. I plan on putting it together over the next few days, and if I have time I will try to post pictures of the progress here.
-
2019-04-23 at 4:25 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator No, your job is to establish that it being relative means it's not objective. I already showed you your example doesn't establish that.
I literally didn't say that anywhere. Just because you lost the argument doesn't mean you have to lie.
I showed that the very fact that they have preferences is objectively reconcilable. This is because whatever your subjective preferences are derived from a deductively true framework i.e. they are as objective as maths. This works regardless of your preferences or how you derive your personal morals.
Go ahead, offer another example. We can do this forever.
My job is only to point out that moral positions are relative. Moral positions are not objectively good or bad, as you already know what can be good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle. Similarly a turtle might objectively travel at 0.63 miles per hour but that is neither objectively quick nor objectively slow.
If you aren't claiming anything is objectively good then we dont disagree.
No, we cannot do this forever. Maybe you can, but I am losing interest. -
2019-04-23 at 12:33 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator No, I said we can take preference, just for the sake of argument, as how they are derived. You already admitted this. Your job was to provide an example of irreconcilable moral positions. I showed that both examples you gave are derived from one and the same moral position, i.e. it doesn't establish your claim. Pick a less shit example.
My only "job" here is to point out that moral positions are relative. The fact that some people think a cock in their ass is good and some people think it is bad has nothing to do with your conclusion that "respecting preferences is objectively good". You jumped to that conclusion. I never claimed that two moral positions are irreconcilable - only that they are relative to a person's own preference. You've admitted this fact. -
2019-04-23 at 2:29 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatYou took the idea that some people prefer cock in their ass and some prefer it not in their ass and somehow arrived at the conclusion that respecting preferences is objectively good. Your reasoning is not existent and your conclusion doesn't make sense - objectively good makes as much sense as objectively quick. Or objectively up. You claim to have used my system but I didn't create anything - some people just like cocks in theirs asses and some people don't. There's nothing objectively good or bad about that. The goodness or badness of it is relative. The topic of consent is irrelevant to this point.
-
2019-04-23 at 1:32 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator So the principle is respecting your preference, like I said: respecting your preference = moral and vice versa.
Not even close. Who says respecting your preference is objectively good? I'm sure there are many who see respecting preferences as a good thing. But there are also those who see respecting preferences as a bad thing. -
2019-04-23 at 1:16 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Keep walking down this road: whether or not it is morally good to put an 8" cock in someone's ass would come from what?
Whether it is good or bad is relative to your preference. The key part here is that "an 8" cock in your ass" is neither objectively good or bad - this would make as much sense as 0.63 miles per hour being objectively quick or slow. Something can only be quick or slow in relation to something else. Just like a cock in your ass can only be good or bad in relation to your preference for a cock in your ass. Objectively, a cock in your ass is a cock in your ass. -
2019-04-22 at 10:59 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatI gave you an example. An 8 " cock in the ass might be a bad thing to a normal person, but a cocksucker like you would consider it to be good.
-
2019-04-22 at 10:41 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Why?
Pay attention. The reason why is that 0.63 miles per hour could be quick or slow depending on if you ask the tortoise or the hare. It is the same reason a 6 " cock could be long or short depending on who you ask. Same reason gazelle murder could be good for the lion but bad for the gazelle. I think you already know why - the reason is that all these things are relative.
0.63 miles per hour is objectively 0.63 miles per hour. This speed is not considered quick nor slow unless we are comparing it to something else.
Similarly, <some objective measurement> is objectively <some objective measurement>. That measurement is not considered good nor bad unless we are comparing it to something else.
Goodness and badness are analogous to quickness and slowness. Goodness and badness are relative. -
2019-04-22 at 7:35 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator No, what is morally good or bad is analogous to the speed, and whether something is fast or quick is simply irrelevant to the fact of the matter, as it is a special case for the general rule.
To bring it back to morals, murder is wrong because there is normally no justification for taking someone else's life that you can hold while not wanting to give up your own. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
No, the goodness or badness of something is analogous to the quickness or slowness of something, which is not irrelevant, it's what we're talking about.
You can measure a cock. Maybe a cock is 8". Is that good or bad? Well everyone will have a different answer, and their answer will depend on a variety of things. For example, is the cock hanging between their legs or is it shoved up their ass? I know faggots like you might think that's a great thing, but not everyone would agree. This is why the goodness or badness of things are relative. -
2019-04-21 at 9:58 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The moral fact of the matter is analogous to what speed it is going at, period.
No, the goodness or badness of something is analogous to the quickness or slowness of something, which as I've explained is a relative thing.
We can objectively measure speed, but the objective measurement of speed doesn't change that what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
Similarly, the objective measurement of <something?> doesn't change that what is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle. -
2019-04-21 at 9:30 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatDo you think that what is quick for the tortoise cannot be slow for the hare? Because I'm pretty sure you do agree what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
-
2019-04-21 at 5:58 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Nowhere in the discussion is "how the tortoise should feel" relevant. Exactly how slow he is is a perfectly universally translatable concept regardless of how it feels.
It is relevant to the question is the tortoise quick or slow. Yes, his exact speed is universally translatable. But whether that speed is quick or slow is relative. The tortoise might answer that he is quick at that speed. The hare might answer that he is slow at that speed. Quick and slow are relative, like good and bad. -
2019-04-21 at 4:29 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator 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.
Whether or not it's relative is irrelevant to whether or not it is objective.
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.
Your concept of good and your concept of bad have grown from all the experiences you have had in life up until now. What you find good or bad is relative and unique to your life. Another person with a different life experience will have different concepts of good and bad. Of course the experiences that led to your concepts objectively happened. In a fantastic world we could probably objectively measure and map exactly what experiences led to your different perspectives. None of that changes that what is good or bad for you is not necessarily good or bad for the other person.
Of course the speed of the tortoise and the speed of the hare is objective. That doesn't change that the quickness or slowness of the hare or the tortoise is relative to their own experience. What is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
Relativity is not irrelevant. Relativity is the whole point.
The fact that you can make a case that they "should" feel something they do not actually feel doesn't change the way they do feel. 0.63 miles per hour might feel extremely quick to the tortoise. Sure, you can make the case that he is actually very slow relative to the hare. You might try to convince him that he should feel slow traveling at that rate. Your case doesn't change the fact that the tortoise experiences his speed as extremely quick. -
2019-04-21 at 3:48 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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 3:17 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatI don't see the part where you're supposed to be disagreeing with me.
