Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
baseless paranoid proselytizing.. you talking about objectivity is fucking hilarious.
Morality is nothing more than the soundly reasoned distinction between that which is sound behavior and that which is not... based upon the empirical study of Natural Law; which is to say God's Law as defined by the laws God set forth to govern human behavior.
That doesn't matter though. They need to deny the existence of objective morality and so they do. That doesn't mean they won't use the concept for their own purposes, however. It just means they get to pick and choose when it's allowed to come into play.
Of course it matters, Pedro.
These people are Relativist... they deny all sense of objectivity, therefore they lack the capacity to reason objectively.
Subsequently they reason subjectively... exclusively subjectively. And from that, is where you find them 'using the law to their own benefit; which is to say 'using the law subjectively'.
The problem with that, as I'm sure you realize, is that for law to serve justice, THE LAW must be objective and absent objectivity, the law can NEVER serve justice.
And that is why, wherever the Left finds root, it undermines the means of the citizen to find justice. And that is why the Left deems their constituents "Victims". Because as their subjectivism takes hold, justice become impossible... . And from that comes what? Order, peace and prosperity?
LOL! No no... As I discussed above: The Left... serve only to generate Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe.
And in that we can KNOW... that the Ideological Left, like its cousin Islam, is manifestly Evil. Islam is merely a more disciplined example of such. Much more in kinship with the Revolutionary Marxists of old.
gravity physics etc. are not subjective. objectivity in humans is relative and subjective but some of us do our best to be objective lot's don'tIf objectivity exists, then how is everything subjective?false.But objectivity doesn't exist though, right?false! objective evidence.Which you're forced to regard as your own subjective, biased opinion by your own reasoning.your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.
I'll give the easiest one your belief in sky fairies.your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.
ROFLMNAO!
Based upon what, SPECIFICALLY?
I thought it was understood that we weren't talking about physics but philosophy. Of course gravity is objectively real. That has nothing to do with whether a moral idea can be objectively wrong if morality is strictly subjective.gravity physics etc. are not subjective. objectivity in humans is relative and subjective but some of us do our best to be objective lot's don'tIf objectivity exists, then how is everything subjective?false.But objectivity doesn't exist though, right?false! objective evidence.Which you're forced to regard as your own subjective, biased opinion by your own reasoning.
math is not subjective... you'll have to be disappointed evil and good are interchangeable....if you were smart you'd work it out from here.never said you pov was evil (that';s also a subjective pov)
So evil is subjective?
Oh now THAT is fascinatin'... take a moment and show me your math on that one. I'm just all a tingle to hear you explain how you've come to that conclusion.
false morality has consequences and effects just like gravity. does it not?I thought it was understood that we weren't talking about physics but philosophy. Of course gravity is objectively real. That has nothing to do with whether a moral idea can be objectively wrong if morality is strictly subjective.gravity physics etc. are not subjective. objectivity in humans is relative and subjective but some of us do our best to be objective lot's don'tIf objectivity exists, then how is everything subjective?false.But objectivity doesn't exist though, right?false! objective evidence.
Math is also separate from moral philosophy. Humor me. How can something be objectively immoral if the morality of a thing cannot be objective? How can something be either good or evil if they're interchangeable? Specifically our view that infanticide is immoral. You consider that view wrong because morality is subjective, but you also consider it immoral. I'm simply asking how you can hold two mutually contradictory viewpoints at the same time.math is not subjective... you'll have to be disappointed evil and good are interchangeable....if you were smart you'd work it out from here.never said you pov was evil (that';s also a subjective pov)
So evil is subjective?
Oh now THAT is fascinatin'... take a moment and show me your math on that one. I'm just all a tingle to hear you explain how you've come to that conclusion.
No?
So you wouldn't follow the Bibles guidance in the eating of shell fish and Kosher meats?
LOL!
Then for 99.999999~% of human history you wouldn't have lasted long... . As that medical guidance lead people away from deadly bacteria.
Again... your would-be 'position' simply defines you as what has long been known in greater nature as "FOOD!".
So you're qualified to tell me what I believe in?
LOL! That's HYSTERICAL! Given that you're not even qualified to tell me what you believe in.
Suffice it to say I am not a believer in any Sky Pixie. And you are woefully unqualified to test me on that, as you prove post after post, day in and day out... .
Well, at what time does a baby get the right to live?
Formerly it was a baby with a right to live at the moment of birth.
But now, liberals want to slide the line away from that position and say the baby still has no right to live, even after it was born.
So how long does it take for a baby to become fully human? Five minutes? An hour? A day?
Where's the lines?
Evil used as a synonym for immoral, which you judge it to be by your own admission. However, you also admit to viewing morality as subjective. By that reasoning our view that it's moral would be just as valid. You can't really argue both that your subjective opinion is objectively true and that being objectively true or false is impossible.
baseless paranoid proselytizing.. you talking about objectivity is fucking hilarious.
objectivity
[ob-jik-tiv-i-tee, -jek-] /ˌɒb dʒɪkˈtɪv ɪ ti, -dʒɛk-/
noun
1.
the state or quality of being objective :
He tries to maintain objectivity in his judgment.
2.
intentness on objects external to the mind.
3.
external reality.
is the antithesis. of everything you spew.
Evil used as a synonym for immoral, which you judge it to be by your own admission. However, you also admit to viewing morality as subjective. By that reasoning our view that it's moral would be just as valid. You can't really argue both that your subjective opinion is objectively true and that being objectively true or false is impossible.
Except through the majority of human history, slavery was considered "moral".
The reality is, morality is based on what is practical.
It's not hard most mature and intelligent people can do it with ease.Math is also separate from moral philosophy. Humor me. How can something be objectively immoral if the morality of a thing cannot be objective? How can something be either good or evil if they're interchangeable? Specifically our view that infanticide is immoral. You consider that view wrong because morality is subjective, but you also consider it immoral. I'm simply asking how you can hold two mutually contradictory viewpoints at the same time.math is not subjective... you'll have to be disappointed evil and good are interchangeable....if you were smart you'd work it out from here.never said you pov was evil (that';s also a subjective pov)
So evil is subjective?
Oh now THAT is fascinatin'... take a moment and show me your math on that one. I'm just all a tingle to hear you explain how you've come to that conclusion.
Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.Evil used as a synonym for immoral, which you judge it to be by your own admission. However, you also admit to viewing morality as subjective. By that reasoning our view that it's moral would be just as valid. You can't really argue both that your subjective opinion is objectively true and that being objectively true or false is impossible.
Except through the majority of human history, slavery was considered "moral".
Burning people for witchcraft was considered "Moral".
Killing people for being gay was considered "Moral".
Spare me the "morality" bullshit.
The reality is, morality is based on what is practical. Abortion is legal because women who don't want to be pregnant WILL find a way to not be pregnant.
So basically what you're saying is that you've never had a problem holding two incompatible views at the same time? It's a shame you can't explain to me how that works. I'd love to see a coherent explanation for how this is reasonable.It's not hard most mature and intelligent people can do it with ease.Math is also separate from moral philosophy. Humor me. How can something be objectively immoral if the morality of a thing cannot be objective? How can something be either good or evil if they're interchangeable? Specifically our view that infanticide is immoral. You consider that view wrong because morality is subjective, but you also consider it immoral. I'm simply asking how you can hold two mutually contradictory viewpoints at the same time.
As far back as I can remember it's never been a problem for me.
If you were looking for a more detailed answer , you've got the wrong guy .
I learned a very long time ago some things just are and no explanation or there is not an accurate one.
Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.Evil used as a synonym for immoral, which you judge it to be by your own admission. However, you also admit to viewing morality as subjective. By that reasoning our view that it's moral would be just as valid. You can't really argue both that your subjective opinion is objectively true and that being objectively true or false is impossible.
Except through the majority of human history, slavery was considered "moral".
Burning people for witchcraft was considered "Moral".
Killing people for being gay was considered "Moral".
Spare me the "morality" bullshit.
The reality is, morality is based on what is practical. Abortion is legal because women who don't want to be pregnant WILL find a way to not be pregnant.
Humans have an inherent right not to be deprived of their life. This applies to all humans, including the ones you want to murder.
Women are not pregnant by default, including the ones you got pregnant.
You don't get to speak to me about morality when you argue against human rights. You don't get to tell me what's right and what's wrong when you oppose feeding the poor and giving medical aid to the needy. You had your chance at being a decent human being. You blew it. Now get the fuck out of my and Daws' dialogue, sergeant.
n what context? From what perspective was Slavery considered moral?
From God's perspective? Yes... in some cases. And in that perspective slavery was moral.
But from the perspective of the individual, slavery is immoral, as unlimited power over another, is destructive to one's own soul.
False. Way to rationalize your bullshit .baseless paranoid proselytizing.. you talking about objectivity is fucking hilarious.
objectivity
[ob-jik-tiv-i-tee, -jek-] /ˌɒb dʒɪkˈtɪv ɪ ti, -dʒɛk-/
noun
1.
the state or quality of being objective :
He tries to maintain objectivity in his judgment.
2.
intentness on objects external to the mind.
3.
external reality.
is the antithesis. of everything you spew.
Excellent... I felt like this would take two posts. And here you've already admitted that your position rests in what amounts to absolutely NOTHING.
LOL! You could not even cite the root of what it is you're arguing; thus you're here to parrot what you've "heard". Having given NONE of it any consideration, beyond the heartfelt: "Uh HUH! DAZ RIGHT!"
objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: historians try to be objective and impartial. Contrasted with subjective.• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:
Objectivity is that which rests in natural, immutable truth... which is to say Nature's Law. These are laws the serve the interest of nature... thus which serve the interests of the whole, equally.
For instance, when someone gives you too much money in change. The Right thing to do, is what?
The right thing to do is to give back that which is not yours.
Now why do you suppose that is? You likely feel that 'its the right thing to do, because 'it's not yours', or that 'the person's draw will come up short and they'll have to pay it out of their own pocket.'
And while that is all true... the OBJECTIVE reason that it is wrong, is that when YOU TAKE THAT WHICH IS NOT YOURS, YOU BECOME A THIEF and as such less a human being. YOU BECOME THE PROBLEM. And when you do it once... YOU WILL DO IT AGAIN and you'll do it when it's not just change, the next time will be more overt, as the rationalization you used to justify your first theft will come to support you in your further decline.
Your objective understanding of what is right and wrong however, will guide you to save yourself and in so doing, you will serve yourself soundly, your family soundly, your community soundly, your nation and your culture soundly.
These are objective truths, thus they are simply: TRUTH. And they remain so, if you 'believe' it or not.
OK so you believe that a baby may be killed up to the moment there is a birth certificate recorded his birth?Well, at what time does a baby get the right to live?
Formerly it was a baby with a right to live at the moment of birth.
But now, liberals want to slide the line away from that position and say the baby still has no right to live, even after it was born.
So how long does it take for a baby to become fully human? Five minutes? An hour? A day?
Where's the lines?
The line is when the parents and the doctor sign a certificate of live birth.
Which is actually the legal definition we've used for a long time.
This is clearly not going to happen when a woman went to an abortion clinic to rid herself of a fetus that wouldn't be viable 99% of the time.
Bullshit.Evil used as a synonym for immoral, which you judge it to be by your own admission. However, you also admit to viewing morality as subjective. By that reasoning our view that it's moral would be just as valid. You can't really argue both that your subjective opinion is objectively true and that being objectively true or false is impossible.
Except through the majority of human history, slavery was considered "moral".
In what context? From what perspective was Slavery considered moral?
From God's perspective? Yes... in some cases. And in that perspective slavery was moral.
But from the perspective of the individual, slavery is immoral, as unlimited power over another, is destructive to one's own soul.
The reality is, morality is based on what is practical.
False... that reality in the pretense of the subjective individual, OKA: The lowly Relativist.
In reality morality is merely the empirical understanding of laws of nature that govern human behavior; informing the individual and, by extension, the cultural whole... of behavior which is sound and behavior which is unsound.
