Josephhasfun01
New Member
WarK said:So, what says the objective morality about plagiarism?
I find it quite ironic.
It say's what should be done is not always done by everybody. Including me.
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.
WarK said:So, what says the objective morality about plagiarism?
I find it quite ironic.
Prolescum said:Of course, I don't believe for a minute that you haven't read them in full already...
Josephhasfun01 said:Ad Hominem attacks are not really arguments. They are fallacious at best.
I tried to read "hakenslach" posts but I just can't soldeir through all the profanity. It's the equivalent of sticking my brain into a garbage disposal. I just find it replusive that people talk like that. I wish I could read it but it makes me want to vomit. All he has to do is omit the garbage words and I would be happy to address the posts.
Apparently you don't keep up with current events.
Now that you have some dialog going now, how about you tell me where empathy comes from? Stating 'evolution' is not an answer. You would need to explain how evolution gives us empathy.
wiki said:A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3] Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate and other species including birds. In humans, brain activity consistent with that of mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex.
Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy
I called you on cherry picking fallacy.
What was the reason you would not wish to converse with some one that assumes your wrong before you speak? You say that there is just no point. Why is there no point? Just simply stating there is no point is a non answer.
In fact, without the Moral Law, simple value-laden terms such as "good," "bad," "better, and "worse" would have no objective meaning.
RedYellow said:In fact, without the Moral Law, simple value-laden terms such as "good," "bad," "better, and "worse" would have no objective meaning.
Is the Moral Law itself good or bad, Joseph? Nothing destroys meaning more than an objective law. A Law is an 'IS' statement. You can only get an 'OUGHT' statement from a qualifier, like 'IF.'
IE, I OUGHT not murder, IF I want to be the kind of person I would want to be surrounded by.
What good is a moral law if nobody accepts it or finds it useful on a personal level? And further, how are you NOT using your own subjective judgment to say that moral laws are good?
I challenge you to explain why we should adhere to objective moral laws, WITHOUT using any reasons that secular people would use to justify secular morality.
Is the Moral Law itself good or bad, Joseph? Nothing destroys meaning more than an objective law. A Law is an 'IS' statement. You can only get an 'OUGHT' statement from a qualifier, like 'IF.'
I challenge you to explain why we should adhere to objective moral laws, WITHOUT using any reasons that secular people would use to justify secular morality.
Frenger said:Josephhasfun01 said:Ad Hominem attacks are not really arguments. They are fallacious at best.
Ad hominem
It helps if you understand the definitions of these fallacies. What I was saying was that "knowing" something means precisely fuck all. This isn't something you can just assert and then get pissy when people demand more than your word for evidence.
I tried to read "hakenslach" posts but I just can't soldeir through all the profanity. It's the equivalent of sticking my brain into a garbage disposal. I just find it replusive that people talk like that. I wish I could read it but it makes me want to vomit. All he has to do is omit the garbage words and I would be happy to address the posts.
I'd grow up if I were you. Like he says, he doesn't care if you read, respond, masturbate whatever. The posts were aimed at people who want to understand better. It's actually quite a gift to write something both funny and thought provoking, especially in a topic like this.
Apparently you don't keep up with current events.
Don't tar me with the same shitty brush you use on yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_India
Notice arrests, laws passed, wide spread protests to such tragic events. It's not perfect but your assertion there is no law against it or people weren't arrested for it is again, unfounded and fucking ignorant.
Now that you have some dialog going now, how about you tell me where empathy comes from? Stating 'evolution' is not an answer. You would need to explain how evolution gives us empathy.
Empathy is quite likely the result of mirror neurons which fire when you witness an act on another animal.
wiki said:A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3] Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate and other species including birds. In humans, brain activity consistent with that of mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex.
It also goes on to say
Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy
We are a social animal, understanding how an action effects another means we can avoid it without having to live through it ourselves (this is one part of the function of mirror neurons).
I called you on cherry picking fallacy.
And I called you on your misuse of that term.
What was the reason you would not wish to converse with some one that assumes your wrong before you speak? You say that there is just no point. Why is there no point? Just simply stating there is no point is a non answer.
A conversation on a topic such as this is an interchange of ideas, of knowledge. As you said you weren't interested in reading what I had to say and would simply assume I was wrong, you effectively removed yourself from the conversation. The only point of me staying in was if you had something to offer me, some knowledge, a nugget of something interesting. Unfortunately I don't need dogshit at the moment so I was happy to leave it there.
Good enough explanation for you?
I notice you also skimmed over the biblical references to your god killing children and raping. Is this because you don't like to think of your god as being a bit rapey?[/quote
It was fun watching you scramble to cover your failings and all, but I really must move on now. I am finding all this to be a bit too dramatic for my liking. I have an idea that will be much more objective. I just have only one thing left to say to you about your belief that moral law is subjective. Your confusion is most irritating. You believe, since we don’t know how every single moral dilemma should be handled, that means that there is no objective morality. But if there is no objective morality then everything pertaining to what should be done in moral situations is relative to opinions. That is the most laughable thing I have ever heard. It is so far from reality. It is just amazing to me that people really believe that in the face of what we know about objective morality. I noticed how you addressed what I said about never use the word “should” when trying to refute objective morality. Unfortunately what you said has nothing to do with morality. See the examples you gave below?
I love it when I see people use the word “should”. You should, at all costs, avoid using the word “should” when attempting to refute moral law. Because it implies that there is an objective, a goal, a way that something “should” or “ought to be” done.
I wasn’t talking about moral law, I was talking about your false sense of superiority. But as we are on it, does “you should go for a run” mean there is an objective distance that a person should run?
I must say tha I am surprised that it really bothers you that I have a false sense of superiority when you claim that morality is subjective! I don’t see why it bothers you that I have a high opinion of myself according to you. You inferred that I do. There are things I have said and done that bother you and austral.
Like when we got into over plagiarizing other peoples works. I don’t see what all the fuse was about. If it is merely opinions because morality is subjective than why all the hullabaloo over plagiarism?
Luckily I have google maps, that should lead me out. Oh sorry, I said should again, I mean that will subjectively lead me out.
I notice you also skimmed over the biblical references to your god killing children and raping. Is this because you don't like to think of your god as being a bit rapey?
Prolescum said:There really is no point carrying on, Joseph, if you do not address Hackenslash's posts. He reiterated all the points you haven't addressed legibly (or at all) and added several of his own that require your attention. Don't make other posters waste their time repeating it all to you because you aren't mature enough to handle swear words without wetting your pants. That isn't a reason, it's an excuse.
Of course, I don't believe for a minute that you haven't read them in full already...
australopithecus said:How do you know it's filled with offensive language if you haven't read it?
australopithecus said:Well the important thing is that you've found a novel way to ignore valid refutations of your argument so you can pretend that no one has refuted them.
Moral law is good. Without it would not have any sensible way to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice.
australopithecus said:Well the important thing is that you've found a novel way to ignore valid refutations of your argument so you can pretend that no one has refuted them.
Josephhasfun01 said:australopithecus said:Well the important thing is that you've found a novel way to ignore valid refutations of your argument so you can pretend that no one has refuted them.
That was far from valid. I did address it and Hackenslash has a lot of explaining to do now.
RedYellow said:Moral law is good. Without it would not have any sensible way to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice.
Except we can judge a moral law by other means, like how useful it is to us. You are clearly the one who is confused: You say that moral law is good, but we can't know good without moral law. This is circular reasoning, you can't judge a moral law until you introduce a 'subject.' If the subject is modern human society, then the objective becomes how to best preserve that. You have subjective reasons for why you accept the morals you do, unless you would admit that you'd follow any objective moral law handed down to you. The laws only matter, not the reasons why we have them, right?
Saying morality is subjective is an easy target for folks like you, because you take that to mean it's just whatever people subjectively desire at the time. But what it actually means, is that we use subjects to qualify moral arguments, which would otherwise just be empty rules that people could take or leave.
But IF being a functioning member of society with friends and family who care about me is important to me, then the way to get there isn't subjective. In short, morality isn't just objective or subjective, it's the interplay between the two. It's the interactions between people, not the rules governing the interactions.
Josephhasfun01 said:Judge moral law?
I think your still confused. when I say moral law I mean the moral law that is written on our hearts
and the moral law that we know best by our reactions
Did you see how pissed some people got when I used a textual writing that was not my own?
They reacted and got after me about it.
So if moral law is subjective then I see know reason they could be mad.
They should not be mad because subjective means that it's just opinions.
Their reactions proved that moral law exists.
Moral law is innate.
It's built into us.
We discover it by experiencing and reacting to those experiences because deep down when we feel something is wrong we object to it being continually done the wrong way.
when I say moral law I mean the moral law that is written on our hearts and the moral law that we know best by our reactions
They should not be mad because subjective means that it's just opinions
Their reactions proved that moral law exists.
why are you talking about subjects? I am talking about subjective reasoning. there is a no correlation between a subject and subjectivness.