That’s like giving a blind man a torchlight and taught how to use the on/off switch. How does he know when to apply it?
Nonetheless it is not possible to actually detect light with via ones ears, nose or skin
--> @ShilaThat’s like giving a blind man a torchlight and taught how to use the on/off switch. How does he know when to apply it?SkepticalOne: You're inability to grasp how a blind person functions in the world is not a valid indictment of the analogy.
That discussion was over the definition of subjective.Which we clearly disagree on, making your*subject to*emphasis meaningless.
--> @TarikThat discussion was over the definition of subjective.Which we clearly disagree on, making your*subject to*emphasis meaningless.This is what running out of arguments and realizing you cannot support your own position looks like.
This is what running out of arguments and realizing you cannot support your own position looks like.
Have any support for that assertion?
Have any support for that assertion?
-->@TarikHave any support for that assertion?It's common sense. If you had a response you would have offered it instead of pretending I didn't say everything I did so you could bring back a year old debate in order to not have to address what I said.
If you had a response you would have offered it instead of pretending I didn't say everything I did so you could bring back a year old debate in order to not have to address what I said.
Do blind people dream ?
Nonetheless it is not possible to actually detect light with via ones ears, nose or skin.
:33PM--> @ShilaIf you had a response you would have offered it instead of pretending I didn't say everything I did so you could bring back a year old debate in order to not have to address what I said.Seriously? Don’t act like there’s no common denominator between what you recently said and the “year old debate” that I brought back up, that referral was exactly that a reference/me simply addressing what you clearly have been ignoring. Now, I didn’t like bringing it back up anymore than you did reading it again but you only have yourself to blame by using circular reasoning. If you hate this trip down memory lane so much you can simply nip this in the bud by omitting the *subject to* argument from your diatribe but clearly you find it essential otherwise you wouldn’t have said it, so this notion that I don’t address what you say is just utterly false in fact I notice it even more so to refer to the original place this circular argument even started.
Seriously? Don’t act like there’s no common denominator between what you recently said and the “year old debate” that I brought back up, that referral was exactly that a reference/me simply addressing what you clearly have been ignoring.
Let's recap. You claimed morality only makes sense if it's objective. I then asked you for an objective standard to which you replied "love". I then asserted "well being" as the standard for morality and challenged you to objectively resolve this difference. You have been tap dancing ever since.So let's just cut to the chase; there is no such thing as objective morality. You can have a moral system that objectively follows from the core standard, but the standard itself will always be chosen by the individual, making it necessarily subjective.If you claim God as your moral standard, I can easily reject God as the standard and as I already have, assert something else. At that point we have two different moral systems. There is no objective resolution to this, not even a god because if one does exist and weighed in on which is correct, the answer would then be *subject to* his will.
--> @TarikSeriously? Don’t act like there’s no common denominator between what you recently said and the “year old debate” that I brought back up, that referral was exactly that a reference/me simply addressing what you clearly have been ignoring.There is some crossover, that doesn't mean they are the same points and it certainly doesn't mean you refuted anything meaningful. Let's start by reposting my argument that you ignored a few pages ago:Let's recap. You claimed morality only makes sense if it's objective. I then asked you for an objective standard to which you replied "love". I then asserted "well being" as the standard for morality and challenged you to objectively resolve this difference. You have been tap dancing ever since.So let's just cut to the chase; there is no such thing as objective morality. You can have a moral system that objectively follows from the core standard, but the standard itself will always be chosen by the individual, making it necessarily subjective.If you claim God as your moral standard, I can easily reject God as the standard and as I already have, assert something else. At that point we have two different moral systems. There is no objective resolution to this, not even a god because if one does exist and weighed in on which is correct, the answer would then be *subject to* his will.First thing to notice here is that the part you zeroed in on so you could drop the rest if it was the very last line. Now if you actually read the post you would notice that the point was made in the first two paragraphs. The last paragraph was not necessary at all, it was just thrown in for emphasis and could have been done without the last sentence.But that's the part you want to talk about.And what do you want to discuss regarding this last sentence? A year old debate where you challenged my statement that "subject to" is "literally how you define subjective".Well, of you look up subjective in the dictionary does it use the words "subject to"? No, so I guess you win on that one. That's not how the word is *literally* defined, so, congratulations on the "gotcha"?For those of us who care about actual ideas however, the point of what I'm saying still stands. The *literal* definition of subjective is;"based mainly on opinions or feelings rather than on facts"In other words, it's based on what the individual says instead of what's actual. Which is another of saying, *subject to* a person's say so.This is pretty basic English.So now would you like to address what I've said and substantiate the idea that live is an objective standard for morality, or do you have any other year olds debates you would like to rehash?
There is some crossover, that doesn't mean they are the same points and it certainly doesn't mean you refuted anything meaningful.
Now if you actually read the post you would notice that the point was made in the first two paragraphs.
why would you be concerned about your well being if you didn’t love yourself first?
Well, of you look up subjective in the dictionary does it use the words "subject to"? No, so I guess you win on that one. That's not how the word is *literally* defined, so, congratulations on the "gotcha"?
"based mainly on opinions or feelings rather than on facts"
Which is another of saying, *subject to* a person's say so.
Exactly so to tie this back to our discussion a fact is something that can be proven, so for arguments sake if love is what gets you into heaven then that’s the proof in the pudding.
Shouldn’t heaven be the proof?
The fact that I keep quoting you and responding PROVES that I’m indeed reading your posts. If you don’t like me bringing up old stuff then why do you insist on recapping?
I took your example and used it against you showing no signs of subjectivity whatsoever
I was subjected to this weather. That sentence has nothing to do with dependent on the mind for existence
Exactly so to tie this back to our discussion a fact is something that can be proven, so for arguments sake if love is what gets you into heaven then that’s the proof in the pudding.
I recap because you seem to like inventing your own conversations rather than replying to the one you’re actually engaged in.
So when you say subject to the weather, there are no opinions involved. The weather is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. But when you say something is subject to an individuals say so then that necessarily, means it is dependent on that person’s opinion.
