Action does not imply force. You injected enforcement.
Yeah…we’re all the stupid ones 
I’m sorry that you’re so easy to untangle, and I know that frustrates you because you are clearly the type to believe that they are some kind of unsolvable pandora’s box of logically impenetrable arguments…but you ain’t it chief.
There’s nothing for you to teach me when you are so measurably infantile in your approach to almost any subject.
Yes. The whole reason we have consequences for anything is because of the concept of deterrence.
I’m not saying everyone magically becomes a murderous savage without laws, because the whole point is that as humans we are inclined to work together to come up with these rules in the first place.
The rules are still based on subjective principles, though.
You said it…
Ah yes, you got me there, Psych 101 did you a world of good, yup.
At no point have I even implied what we’re talking about is unsolvable, you just keep stepping on rakes over and over again and I’m imploring you to stop doing that.
You snobbishly attack people you mark as lesser than you and you want to get huffy because you perceive me being less than magnanimous to you? 
This is in direct conflict with:
You literally made a claim that the only reason we respect laws is because of deterrence… and then proceed to nullify that claim by POINTING TO A RULE THAT HUMANS GENERALLY BEHAVE IN A SPECIFIC UNIVERSAL MANNER
Then you immediately try to walk it back by saying:
Which undermines the previous statement!
At no point have you managed to coherently map your claims about morality or oughts. You swing between universals and non-universals without regard for the non sequiturs you keep committing.
You’re misunderstanding the entire thing (why am I not surprised).
Species propagation is something very common in mammals.
Does that mean I’m saying animals have morals? No. Animals murder other animals and even their own species regularly on a daily basis and they don’t even have advanced societal trappings to prevent it. We also don’t even care that they do it. We just call it nature.
Saying that we invented methods of deterrence is not in conflict with the idea that humans, generally, will act on that former explained biological inclination. The x factor here is intelligence level, which we as humans benefit from, which allow us to come up with these sort of systems. Us being intelligent however, doesn’t really make us special in the grand scheme of things. Many animals do lots of things better than us, survive certain things better than us, and so on, we just happen to be weighted towards sophistication.
Rules we make up are still subjective in the sense that they are not passed down to us by any sort of moral authority. We, as humans, decided based on voting systems and majority rule (most of the time) which things we wanted to live by. That doesn’t even mean that everyone lives by it, some don’t and pay the price. We cast out and ostracize the ones who don’t.
If you do drugs and that’s against my morals. And I take the action of not associating with you. I have not used force by any conventional means of the word force.
You’re going to argue from nature… you’re going to commit an informal fallacy that appeals to a vague evolutionary precursor as if that isn’t just one grand handwaving non sequitur… 
And there it is.
A false appeal to nature and naturalism all in one nice little incoherent bow.
This is a rather bold claim, unproven too.
Morality via raw exercise of power. Neat.
Enforce. Not force. Enforce.
You’re not this stupid, you’re just trolling.
Calling things a fallacy doesn’t make them wrong.
We are animals just like any other. The subject of biology is a well studied one.
You spent your childhood reading the wrong books, unfortunately.
I see.
I suppose you have an argument for the existence of some kind of moral arbiter?
(I’m pretty sure we all know who it is you think that is)
I.E. all animals, including humans.
It’s not “neat”, it’s just how it is.
Using a fallacy to prove why we behave as we do and deriving an ought from that makes it unsupported.
You are not just an animal.
You are not just a sack of meat and bones.
Materialism is strictly idiotic and incoherent tripe.
https://iai.tv/articles/why-materialism-is-a-dead-end-bernardo-kastrup-auid-1271
https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conseqs-of-materialism.html
No no, you made the claim none exists. Proceed.
It is sociopathic and monstrous.
You quite literally said enforcement, gave examples if physical force. Enforce means basically the same thing. And maybe you mean reinforce. But that is not what you said or how you argued.
I’m trying to say that you’re crap at identifying fallacies, Fasc. You calling something a fallacy has all the impact of the boy who cried wolf.
Yes, we are.
The evidence suggests that most of what religion has laid out as our origin story is where the “incoherent tripe” is found.
Honestly, I think it’s more dangerous to believe that you are special just because you’re a human.
Yeah… you’re trolling. You previously argued with me that right/wrong was so different from goodness that I was strawmanning you, but now you’re trying to equate literal force with enforcement…
You’re relying on an appeal to nature for how we ought to behave, that’s a non-sequitur. You can’t just wave at nature and say “See! Behold! Animals mating and living and stuff!” and then point to human laws and social order and call it a day. There’s a myriad of intermediate steps you’re skipping.
I’m not going to take on faith something that is incoherent and illogical. Prove it up.
What evidence? What does our “origin story” have to do with anything? None of this even touches on proving that no moral universals exist…
Heaven forbid you acknowledge any differences, you might actually have to be responsible for something…
According to…?
What evidence?
1 Like
Guys, I am not your mother, your pastor, or your science teacher. It’s not my job, and pretty far from my place, to be the one to red pill you in to reality.
You might grow and learn, you might not, but you definitely aren’t going to be taking pointers from random forum-goer #54583942 so excuse me for not being motivated.
It’s a good conversation, though.
Technically, someone who commits a criminal act was always going to commit that act assuming their life went exactly as it went, they were never going to make another choice.
So does it really make sense to punish them?
Yes, it still does. They turned out undesirable, and so they face the punitive measures in place to section off those types from others.
And yes, I’m going all the way to [the lack of] free will.
What a cop-out…
If you think there is no free will, then it literally makes no sense to punish someone outside of the personal gratification you get from punishing people. That’s sociopathic hedonism. Even idiotic Hollywood manages to consistently portray that as evil…
It makes no sense to judge anyone of anything, since they can’t change anyway, and there are no good beliefs or bad beliefs, and there is no argument or agreement, there are no good systems or bad systems, there are no criminals, there are no rules.
You’re sociopathic.
/backs-away-slowly
Okay, but I’m still going to want to see what evidence you have for what you say.
Not really since you refuse to engage past anyone asking you why anything you say is legit. That’s a huge detriment to conversation.
It does make sense.
We deem it a necessity to separate dangerous people from the rest because it harms our imperative to…you know, propagate.
There are rules, you just have to understand that they are inherently subjective. We made them up. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t follow them, in fact I’d recommend you do as it’s more likely to give you a higher quality of life in the end which is favorable to, you know, the opposite.
Other places have different rules though.
No free will obliterates any of this reasoning.
No it doesn’t lol.
Do you think animals (the lesser kind in your eyes) have free will?
I mean let’s walk though this…
First use of the word enforcement. Clearly physical enforcement.
Here I am clearly referring to your above use of the word enforcement.
Your reply
I then questioned are we talking about a different enforcement.
It’s kind of up in there air here if you switched to mean reinforce, but that is not what the previous context was or the word you used.
Additionally if you are not taking about literal enforcement. What is you point? Non how does non literal enforcement effect my statement then? It does not.