User Controls
Posts by Common De-mominator
-
2019-04-23 at 4:10 PM UTC in What are you listening to right now, space nigga?
-
2019-04-23 at 1:54 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe My only "job" here is to point out that moral positions are relative.
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.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 literally didn't say that anywhere. Just because you lost the argument doesn't mean you have to lie.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.
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. -
2019-04-23 at 12:30 PM UTC in Ayone here like tears for fears?Be adviced that Gary Jules is just Tears for Fear unannounced
-
2019-04-23 at 3:48 AM UTC in HEY LETS NO LONGER TALK EDGY TOPICSPost in the moral meat thread
-
2019-04-23 at 3:46 AM UTC in Take down that stupid fucking banner
-
2019-04-23 at 3:40 AM UTC in Lindsay Zywickiel looks to be doing greatThey look like the same faggot before/after a sex change.
-
2019-04-23 at 3:38 AM UTC in What are you listening to right now, space nigga?
-
2019-04-23 at 3:36 AM UTC in HEY LETS NO LONGER TALK EDGY TOPICSWhore.
-
2019-04-23 at 3:19 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatNo, 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.
I hadn't even gotten to my part yet. Go ahead and choose a different method for them to be derived, and/or a different example. I'll reconcile them all the same with a completely analytic framework. It's just logical algebra with moral variables. You might as well be denying math. -
2019-04-23 at 1:45 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe Not even close. Who says respecting your preference is objectively good?
I just used your own setup that one considers a cock in the ass good and the other considers a cock in the ass bad. Whatever system you use to determine either is irrelevant.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.
Preferring to not respect preference is internally contradictory. That is an analytic truth, much like mathematics.
Similarly, 1+1=2 whether or not you believe it. -
2019-04-23 at 1:19 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-23 at 1:10 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatBump
-
2019-04-23 at 12:02 AM UTC in Take down that stupid fucking bannerLanny please capitalize the J.
-
2019-04-23 at 12:01 AM UTC in Take down that stupid fucking bannerSocial jedi Warrior
-
2019-04-22 at 11:28 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatWe can go back to torturing analogies if you want now.
-
2019-04-22 at 11:14 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe I 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.
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? Let's say just for the sake of argument that it comes from whether or not you want it there (consent). If you don't want an 8" cock in your ass, it is morally wrong to put it in there. Conversely if getting an 8" cock in the ass makes them happy it is morally good to put it in there (make the necessary assumptions about the cocksman's consent in both cases).
The actual moral fact is respecting your consent (for example). That framework translates perfectly to both frames of reference to give you the moral fact of the matter. You literally can't make your statement without this assumption. Both points of reference are simply special cases of the general principle of consent. Respecting your consent is good, disrespecting your consent is bad.
QED. -
2019-04-22 at 10:54 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe 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.
You haven't established that this logic transfers to morality, just proclaim it so. Can you give me an actual moral example? -
2019-04-22 at 9:53 PM UTC in What are you listening to right now, space nigga?
-
2019-04-22 at 9:06 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-22 at 7:55 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
