Didn’t say it was, I just said it was you judging them. Because you don’t use objective frameworks, your judgment is silly.
The entire brain-in-a-jar or brain-in-a-vat hypothesis relies upon constructions which are themselves subject to the same “vat” limitation and question, to include the very skepticism that we are just our brains. Plus it gets into semantics heavily, wherein what we all apparently collectively perceive to be a rose, may not be a rose at all as we understand it, but it doesn’t matter because our WORD for the idea is just that, and the thing we’re interacting with be it a rose or some other nonsense word is irrelevant.
As for reducing us down to mere materialism, the fact that you’re even trying to convince me of materialism is in fact a defeater to materialism… since that entire process is itself metaphysical and a true believer in materialism can’t really think I can change my belief in the first place, because belief itself can’t exist.
Yes.
No.
No.
PS - Being bigoted about theism while arguing we’re all just animals and popularity is all that makes things moral is quite the look.
I mean if people are going to toss out “you’re being unethical!!” for giving Blizzard money, but then turn around and declare with pride that ethics are just whatever is popular at the time and everything is meaningless… it sorta makes the entire initial throwaway line utterly meaningless.
If a nihilist declares you a bad person it has all the punch of a 3yr old telling you that dinosaurs are going to eat your head.
I don’t care that you’re a theist, but it paints your positions (pretty clearly), just making that clear. Theists are often the source of bigoted narratives, as well, if you’re going to start throwing hands there.
Color me totally unconvinced, lol.
Everyone’s judgment is “silly” if that’s the word you want to use, because everyone’s judgment is indeed subjective.
Such is life, friend.
I haven’t said anyone is a bad person, just speculating why she stepped down from the co-CEO role. Again, this outfit is one entirely of your making.
This means nothing from someone without a moral framework.
I used a singular meme, a well known one at that. You couldn’t help yourself when you thought you found a chink in the armor over something so silly. Good thing I didn’t use a soyjack or pepe meme, who knows what you’d have seen in the tea leaves.
Rendering the judgment pointless, ineffective, and performative at best.
Admitting to being a baseless nihilist is something, but nothing good.
I mean, I have a moral framework. I think everybody does. Is it even possible to not have morals unless you’re missing a chunk of your brain or some kind of sociopath? All I’m saying is that it’s tailored by your experiences.
That means, yes, it is subjective, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist at all, it just varies by person.
No, you frequently use his vocabulary too, demonstrating for anyone with a hint that you’ve spent your days relaxing to his soothing Kermit-induced voice on your days off.
Yeah I suppose that’s all just a coincidence
I prefer realist. I don’t really consider myself (nor would anyone who actually interacts with on a daily basis) to be a negative person in the least.
Are you trying to imply that the state of being “abusive” is a moral judgment on my end?
Have you considered that I was also using the word abusive within a subjective framework? What is considered abusive is different based on circumstance. Punching someone in the office is generally considered abusive. Punching someone while competing in your regularly scheduled boxing match is not.
In this circumstance, Blizzard’s behavior has been perceived by many to be abusive to the relevant parties.
Maybe in some societies or countries where oppression or systemic poor treatment of women is a regularity or considered a part of everyday life, Blizzard’s conduct wouldn’t bat anyone’s eye (other than foreign societies with different collective moral standards looking in).
Unless your moral framework points to something objective, you have no moral framework, you just have personal preferences no different than favorite colors or musical instruments.
A - How would you know what his vocabulary is and isn’t?
B - Basic philosophy discussions all have the same jargon because they rely upon the same traditions of teaching, no different than someone who studied math or law
C - This is a very sad attempt to smear.
you just have personal preferences no different than favorite colors or musical instruments.
I outright said your discussion of abusive is a moral judgment.
you just have personal preferences no different than favorite colors or musical instruments.
This is just your opinion, as you have stated time and time again so saying anything is “false” or “true” is nonsensical.
This is special pleading. You demand I accept your opinion as objective truth before I am allowed to discuss the wanton subjectivity of your moral oughts and ought-nots.
The statement that “everyone’s morality is subjective” is itself an objective statement, and yet you have failed to distinguish the axiom from that which the axiom supports. That’s special pleading, a fallacy, because you are treating things that are alike (both are metaphysical statements of morality) as if they are not alike.
Which is fine, according to your principles, because as nothing matters, my “opinion” (according to your understanding of my response) is no more or less valid than your own.
You really need to move beyond basic American fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity if you don’t want to sound amateurish and unlearned. Objective moral frameworks aren’t something exclusively derived from the Bible, nor exclusively justified by the Bible. The Bible need not appear or even exist to have an objective moral framework. I need not cite a single verse to justify it. I don’t need a single verse of the Bible to justify theism.
You’re demonstrating a profound lack of study and experience if you think the Joel Olsteen and Ken Ham’s of the world are anything more than a bad caricature of post-Enlightenment idiocy.
It is.
You demand I accept an objective, rigid absolute in order to justify an otherwise endless sea of subjective, whimsical, and popularity/time/environment based is-oughts.
For some reason, you think it is logical and coherent to apply one set of rules to your axiom (all morality is subjective) but another set of rules to your follow-up (slavery was morally permissible to people living in the antebellum South).
That’s textbook special pleading. You don’t get to use an absolute rule for your foundation in order to declare all absolutes to be incorrect.
Oh, modernity is just present times. Somewhat equivalent to saying, “Current-day society.”
That’s really all it is.
It’s a useful scapegoat. Most societies invent one as a matter of course as a person or people upon whom societal guilt is pinned. A scapegoat remains effective insofar as the rest of a society believes it is guilty.
Ultimately the “scapegoat” isn’t actually guilty and isn’t really what the society says it is.
Biblical example was “Legion.” Jesus visits a country “of the Gerasenes” and encounters this demon-possessed man. What’s implied by the text is that the people of the country had basically “piled” all their demons (their guilt, sins, etc.) onto this guy which caused him to be demon-possessed and drove him insane…
…until Jesus came and exorcised them. The demons beg Jesus to spare them, so he tells them to posess a bunch of pigs that later drown in the nearby sea.
Funnily the countrymen find out what happen and are upset that Jesus did this and they tell him to leave.
If people actually voted with their conscience then why are people buying products from companies like Apple, Nike, Gillette etc who “have their finger to the wind” when these companies use slave labor, fleece developing countries and overcharge for their products that they use to keep others from competition? Apple is notorious for suing other developers into bankruptcy.
Yet people still buy their products, the whole thing is a sham.
As for morality I’m being general. Woke politics are based on Western Sensibilities, aka the Whiteness they complain about. It seems pretty imperialistic to force your views on others using various tactics to get compliance. It’s also a little odd that these same people try to change a gendered language like Spanish and mess with the culture… that sounds like colonization.
