I said what I said.
I know, but whether something is “destroyed” or “untenable” is a qualitative assessment, not a quantitative assessment.
Oh so when it’s climate science, now it’s subjective 
What are you talking about?
1 Like
Completely unplayable! Absolutely haram!
1 Like
Slap. In. The. Face.
I suspect a strawman cometh.
1 Like
We have both destroyed and made parts of the environment untenable. Fact.
It’s not a qualitative assessment. It’s a fact.
The horror!
The words “destroyed” and “untenable” are qualitative, not quantitative.
The stream of conversation with Zealous went as follows:
So Zipzo’s statement:
Needs support. I’m not saying the support is difficult to supply at all, but holy crap Zipzo you really need to learn how to follow the argument.
The question of “destruction” necessitates answering the following question:
“What does it mean to destroy the environment?”
“How do we assess or measure destruction in an environment?”
“At what point is an environment considered ‘destroyed’?”
Because “destruction” is qualitative, it needs some kind of reference point. I don’t get why this concept is so alien to you.
In accordance to what is good. That’s the kicker. What is good, is subjective.
The rest of your response is blowing smoke.
Nope.
If I proceed to beat your face in and you ask me to stop, in a “good is subjective” world, how do you do so without physically overpowering me? Note that I will obey rules that rationally and logically apply to me.
Just because you can’t follow doesn’t mean it is blowing smoke.
1 Like
How do I do it in a ‘good is objective’ world? What does that have to do with anything?
Just because something is subjective doesnt mean it’s not actionable. Many people share the same subjective morals. Murder being bad for example. We can then action against the moral. That doesnt make the moral objective.
While this is just you avoiding the question entirely, if good was objective you’d have a spectacularly easy way to get me to stop. Remember to read the entire question.
It exemplifies the absurdity of moral relativism. Actually try to think through the problem.
You’re just describing enforcement via popular consensus and brute strength. Get enough people together to agree that “murder is bad” and you can physically control/restrain any would-be murderers. Would be a pity in your world if enough people with sufficient power were to ever disagree…
1 Like
I didnt say what the action was, I said nothing of enforcement.
Yeah, so what you’re basically saying is you are blowing smoke up everyone’s bum because it’s all you’ve got. You’re right, it would not be difficult to support the statement, the very true one, that we’ve ruined, destroyed, and damaged large parts of our habitat (planet). Why even waste time with this kind of crap if you’re going to just straight out admit that Zealous is right in the end.
You’re like the living embodiment of a rubix cube’s purpose to a person who’s never going to actively research the ways in which you solve it, you exist to pointlessly twist and turn until the end of time with no reliable, or factual, subject matter backing your unhinged, faith-based arguments.
Taking action = enforcement of the moral rule
/headdesk
Yes. You just described how things work. Right here.
Any further questions?
Lucky for us, a large majority of humans (due to biological motives) believe that propagation of our species is hindered by the act of murder, and thus it is very usually outlawed. So this isn’t something you usually ever have to worry about.
There are places where punitive measures for murder are incredibly light though (and in this case, it wouldn’t even be called murder, since “murder” is a designation for a crime).
It’s just how it is.
Are we changing the definition of enforcement now too? I can act on a moral rule without enforceing it.
Edit without
You consistently fail to summarize anything I say without just outright insulting me or getting it completely wrong… usually both… but don’t FLAG your bad summaries with a known meme that tells everyone you’re about to completely misattribute and straw man me.
You. Are. Dense.
At some point the lightbulb will turn on and you’ll realize that I’m TEACHING YOU HOW TO THINK BECAUSE YOU CONSISTENTLY FAIL AT IT. You approach subjective constructs like taxonomy and empirical data such as effects on climate in a way that you do not approach anything that you think sniffs of morality, metaphysics, God, etc.
You’re a walking contradiction because you have isolated yourself from things that you THINK or FEEL to be outside of your paradigm of what is acceptable priors. You’re literally a perfect exemplar of the Quine-Duhem Thesis.
No, I’m the person that never bothers to pick up the Rubix Cube because all of its rules and limitations can be spelled out 100% accurately, and I can algorithmically solve it from any starting location.
Meanwhile you’re over to the side screeching that unless I pick one up and start turning the pieces, I can never know how to solve it.
You have staggeringly limited deductive reasoning because you treat inductive reasoning as the only valid method.
Are you dense? Do you think there is sufficient ability for the US Government to suppress all of its citizens simultaneously? Do you seriously think the only reason people don’t act out is because there is power to stop them?
FFS…
No? Holy crap this is stupid. If you are actioning someone based on your personal subjective morals, you are enforcing your morals.
1 Like