-->
@Theweakeredge
And you’re saying that under the assumption that theirs subjective morality which their isn’t.
What's your best argument for God's existence?
Posts
Total:
372
-->
@Tarik
That's not an assumption, definitionally speaking - all morality is subjective (not that you understand what the word subjective means), but the argument you are using is presupposing that objective morality is real. All you did was perform a tu quoque fallacy. That's not a proper argument, try again.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's not an assumption, definitionally speaking - all morality is subjective
Prove it
-->
@Tarik
Uhuh, so you're just gonna ignore your fallacies and completely move the goal post here huh? No. You can look up the definitions yourself, until you demonstrate your original assertion I don't think I'll answer your attempt to change the focus off of you.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay for arguments sake I’ll concede that point, your turn.
-->
@Tarik
Objective - “Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.”
Morality - “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
Real - “Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.”
Subjective - “Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence”
P1: Morality is definitionally contingent on principles
P2: All principles used to affirm morality are from the mind
Con: Therefore all morality is definitionally subjective.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That makes no sense, how can you call something that can be affirmed subjective? I don’t know if you’re into semantic disputes but that’s where this is headed, do you know what affirm means?
-->
@Tarik
I think you are unfamilar with the termage of affirm here - by affirm - the verb - which means using x to say y is true. In other words the principles which make up morality are all subjective. You have no idea what you're talking about, you are being semantic.... literally semantic.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Usually when people start their premises with in other words theirs a reason for doing so but that’s not the here nor there, how about we let Google settle this because they define it as “state as a fact; assert strongly and publicly.” So by definition the only things that are done that way are objective things, I got your semantics for you.
-->
@Tarik
Published by Steven Novella
He states: Here I will lay out my position for a philosophical basis of morality and explain why I think objective morality is not only unworkable, it’s a fiction.
-->
@FLRW
Unless you have a direct quote that I could play off of don’t waste my time sending me on a random goose chase to read some phony book.
-->
@FLRW
I could care less about your appeal to authority, and again -
affirm
I don't know where you got that definition of affirm (as you have no source) but it is nothing like what I got
-->
@Tarik
@FLRW
Sorry, the last thing was for you Tarik, and FLRW I thought your post was apart of Tarik's so, oof
-->
@Theweakeredge
I literally just told you it was Google but Bing uses the same definition so here you go https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+affirm&qs=LS&pq=define+af&sk=PRES1LS1EP1&sc=5-9&cvid=2CBBC11D02764EC7B80D32FF629B62FF&FORM=QBLH&sp=3
-->
@Tarik
Cool, and I showed you my definition - which supports my argument, or did you not see my definition which is an actual dictionary? Also:
"state as a fact; assert strongly and publicly"
STATE as a fact - not that it is an fact
You are being deliberately semantic, hence why I stopped the conversation with you - because you're arguments are all dependent on purposely misframing your opponents arguments
Since people's relationship with their god or gods is personal then most will have personal reasons. Not really sure a best reason can be created. Especially since science isn't part of the equation.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I love how you call me out for appeal to authority when your appeal to authority is lexico, nonetheless if morality is something that’s stated as fact then why on earth would you think it’s subjective? I warned you earlier that this is where this is headed and you took me on anyway, you’re just salty that you lost and if you stopped the conversation with me then you wouldn’t have replied to a message that wasn’t intended for you and if I’m misframing your argument now’s your chance to clear things up otherwise have a nice day.
-->
@Tarik
First of all, the appeal to authority was in reference to TLRW which I cleared up in the thing below, whenever you are discussing definitions you necessarily have to use dictionaries, do you not know how definitions work? Something which is stated as a fact is not the same as something that is a fact, are you daft? The principles which are asserted to be fact, and those principles are what are used to make up morality. The fact is - just because something is asserted to be objectively true, does not make them objectively true. The principles used for morality are contingently subjective. Do you not comprehend basic english? Have I not made my point clear yet? You have no idea what you're talking about. If you think you won, then challenge me to a debate, and we'll see how it's judged hm?
-->
@Theweakeredge
One minute I’m semantic the next I can’t comprehend basic English 🤔 nonetheless at the very least can you agree that morality is stated as fact?
-->
@Tarik
No, we can agree that the principles of morality are treated as fact. They are assumed, and that is what the definition is referring to. These principles are subjective - you not comprehending english is the cause of your semantic arguments
-->
@Theweakeredge
But according to the definition it’s stated as fact, and like you said “I could care less about your appeal to authority” so however a hypothetical debate is judged is irrelevant.
-->
@Tarik
Yes... do you not know what "stated" means? Something which is said to be fact. That is irrelevant to the actual objective-ness of a claim. Again, you have not attacked anything, simply semantically insisted your position against mine without proper argument. If someone said to you, "I affirm this bill" what do you think that means? Do you think that this bill is fact, this bill is true and it is good? No! Of course not! It means that that person affirms it, that that person believes this bill is true.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You’re jumping the gun here all I asked was if we can agree that the definition says stated as fact and you take that and run with your own narrative slow down now.
-->
@Tarik
Control the narrative? How about stop you from making some sort of false implications. I know for almost a fact that your plan for this conversation was to get me to say, "Ah yes, it says state as a fact" and then try to harp on that like it means I agree with you. Let's get one thing straight, you haven't once, at any point, answered a question straight up. The time I asked you to provide evidence for your assertion? You respond with a tu quoque. The time I insisted and said the conversation was over until you presented evidence? You "conceded". The time you tried to give me a definition of affirm? Not only is the thing you quoted not sourced, you googled it. Then you had the audacity to claim "an appeal to authority" whenever we are talking about dictionary definitions. Your definition says "state as fact", which, again, doesn't mean is fact. It means that someone believes x to be true. Not that x is true. Its a simple logical distinction.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades and for the record your wrong my plan was to follow up with more questions the second one being personal, so if every moral claim you make you’re stating as a fact then why don’t you believe it to be so?
-->
@Tarik
No. I've said they are claimed as a fact, never that they are fact, because something which is claimed to be true isn't necessarily true. If I claim a moral thing as fact, I preface it with the fact that I am presuming a principle. In this case sentience or well being - you're insistence that there is no principle definition could not mean less to me... considering that you find you're definitions from the front page of google and that is the extent of your research.
The principle is subjective however, and that is why morals aren't objective
-->
@Theweakeredge
Sorry but presume and fact should not be used in the same sentence try again, also when did I ever say you said that they are fact please quote me otherwise have a nice day.
-->
@Tarik
You presume that your senses work correctly, to presume is to do nothing but say x is a fact for the sake of conversation. Its hilarious how you have failed to actually address the arguments and you fail to actually provide evidence for your assertion.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Seriously dude context matters and that’s not what you were doing when you initially said presume.
-->
@Tarik
uh huh, and what did I mean? What do you think I meant? Let me say it again, what do you think I meant, and why do you think I meant it that way?