Reyginus: Lol. Ad hominem.
Why is it so difficult to tackle the most important thing at this point?

Google translate

wiegraf:

And how does this affect the fact that is an appeal to emotion?

Here's the truth, to many those involved in that episode, their actions are justified. There is no way their actions van be classified as intrinsically, or objectively evil

It might scare you or make you sad, but that's the fact.

If you want to hold onto this mythological good you're high on, again, the same high Messrs Hitler et all were on (see, it works both ways), if you want to even dream of holding on some semblance of a point, simply show how the right to live of a predator overrides that of its prey. Simple

I am going to drop this discussion with you pretty soon.

There are too many cardinal questions that have been raised for you to answer, which you have ignored: and as such you have little right to pose questions in lieu of answers.

I will give you a simple answer to the question of predator and prey: I say that it is natural order. The same way it is natural for a Lion to eat cattle, but unnatural for a Lion to make fellow Lions its standard feed. That is as simple, direct and non-escapist a response as you can get. Please return the favor, with reference to my many unanswered questions. And also Reyginus' question, which you lied about having addressed. You have not addressed it. Either address it, or show where you addressed it.

wiegraf:

All the stuff i mention on my immediate reply, I didn't make it up. I notice the last paragraph of that post is what you now quote as the opener of the current version of the post.

I dont get what you mean here.

wiegraf:

Google translate

Google escape. . . .

wiegraf:

And how does this affect the fact that is an appeal to emotion?

- - - >

Deep Sight:


Direct experience often enables more realistic assessment of reality.

Deep Sight:

Good grief! What terribly garbled irrational contradictions! It suddenly dawns on me that you have had no idea at all what is being discussed! From the beginning you had no clue what the subject was and you still don't!

OMG!

Then state clearly what is being discussed. We might as well start over. Though I suspect you'll go for a bottle of stout rather than address the issue.

Uyi Iredia:

Then state clearly what is being discussed. We might as well start over. Though I suspect you'll go for a bottle of stout rather than address the issue.

The bottle of stout is before me already! What else do you think I would be doing on a nice Saturday evening? ? ? ? ? LOL.

What is being discussed is embedded in Reyginus' question and also my revert to Plaetton re: subjectivity.

The real question is how anything at all can be known or stated, if we hold the strict subjectivist stance to be true.

See again -

https://www.nairaland.com/1255695/evil-confirms-absence-god/4#19613758

And cogitate on Reyginus' question.

Deep Sight:

I am going to drop this discussion with you pretty soon.

There are too many cardinal questions that have been raised for you to answer, which you have ignored: and as such you have little right to pose questions in lieu of answers.

I will give you a simple answer to the question of predator and prey: I say that it is natural order. The same way it is natural for a Lion to eat cattle, but unnatural for a Lion to make fellow Lions its standard feed. That is as simple, direct and non-escapist a response as you can get. Please return the favor, with reference to my many unanswered questions. And also Reyginus' question, which you lied about having addressed. You have not addressed it. Either address it, or show where you addressed it.

You addressed nothing with this nonsense, and feel free to run to where ever you go to cry. For one, are you saying its natural for the prey to want to be eaten?? What about its desire to live?! That's not natural? Who even gets to decide what's natural? Shall males now kill the kids of the children of single moms if they're interested in some action? You do know that's what a lot of nature indulges in, no?

Your 'natural' is not my natural. This is patently obvious, so what are you on about?

As for your 'poser', erm, problem where? I've already told you its all subjective. You then ask a senseless question. i've alteady stated this; my f%*$*% standards, society's, whatever the context is, simple. And note, there is absolutely no such thing as a universal context. Impossible even conceptually because of tje fact above; values differ. I could not have been any clearer through this thread. We all do this, just some label it something else. You're here trying to pass your nonsense off as objective , no? Well, it clearly isn't. It then becomes a battle of 'wills'.

So damned simple....

wiegraf:

Google translate

Lol. I better return to the sideline.

wiegraf:

You addressed nothing with this nonsense, and feel free to run to where ever you go to cry. For one, are you saying its natural for the prey to want to be eaten?? What about its desire to live?! That's not natural? Who even gets to decide what's natural? Shall males now kill the kids of the children of single moms if they're interested in some action? You do know that's what a lot of nature indulges in, no?

Your 'natural' is not my natural. This is patently obvious, so what are you on about?

As for your 'poser', erm, problem where? I've already told you its all subjective. You then ask a senseless question. i've alteady stated this; my f%*$*% standards, society's, whatever the context is, simple. And note, there is absolutely no such thing as a universal context. Impossible even conceptually because of tje fact above; values differ. I could not have been any clearer through this thread. We all do this, just some label it something else. You're here trying to pass your nonsense off as objective , no? Well, it clearly isn't. It then becomes a battle of 'wills'.

So damned simple....

Well let me close this thread in as charitable a way as I can - by saying that perhaps we both mean well, but have some fundamental misunderstanding which is difficult to get past. I will try, as soon as I find the strength, to formulate a new thread and summarize the issues with greater clarity for a more intelligible discussion perhaps next week.

Ciao, my dear random amigo. . . and I hope you do not take my barbs and jibes to heart. . . na so I dey play with everybodi. . .

Yeah, now, on to serious matters. . . where is the next bottle. . . aha, right here, within arm's reach. . . . hic.

Deep Sight:

Objective Morality against Murder

Objective Morality against R.ape

Two simple examples. You enforce them with the enactment of criminal laws and a criminal justice system based on that objective recognition.

Laws work fine. Subjective views of many in agreement also work fine as well. In fact, that's precisely the case and precisely why ypu think it objective. It is NOT.

Deep Sight: If these were subjective, there would NEVER be any legitimate basis to enact such laws and enforce them:

Is this REALLY objective ? And why can't in my subjective view think it legitimate to enforce a subjective view. You best (a lawyer) should know that at times laws impose the subjective views of the legislature interests of a few on the majority. A case in point being California's Prop. 8 deemed unconstitutional by California's Supreme Court.

Deep Sight: for that would amount to nothing more than the imposition of the subjective views of some over others.

Yes. But if it is 'objective' I am not imposing any view on a person who thinks differently. Very consistent Mr DS !

Deep Sight:
- - - - -- - - - - - - - -

CONSIDER THIS:

The position of ALL the subjectivists here means that something such as slavery was MORALLY RIGHT at the time that it was practiced - by subjective opinion of those practicing it.

Not quite. Moral subjectivity will note that more folks thought it good as at then, AND that there were still people who thought it wrong, more than people give credit BTW. This emotional appeal you like to throw pisses off because I am TOO SURE if you were born then you would possibly think it right. For examole, slavery was once a punitive measure for crimes and debt owed, now we have prisons, and I'm sure you think it right. Consider, a possible future where gay marriage is legalized everywhere and death and prison has been abolished for centuries, I can imagine another silly Deep Sight junior claiming that because moral subjectivity allows that because former views where right as at then, moral subjectivity is horrible. What nonsense !

Deep Sight: This position renders that it (slavery) ONLY became morally wrong when abolished.

So ! I will, for example, say r@pe, is wrong ONLY when it is made illegal, WTF !

Deep Sight: This is an incredibly irrational position or implication because - >

1. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there would have not been a moral agitation against it, much less one that led to a universal recognition of its abhorrence.

And moral subjectivity allows for that. To the people who think it right, it's right. To those, who think it wrong, it's wrong. This point like others after it is based on a straw man which thinks moral subjectivity makes the majority stance right. Moral subjectivity notes that morality varies by the person, nothing more or less. It doesn't claim the general outlook on a thing determines it's morality, not so, since moral subjectivists would themselves differ on it.

Deep Sight: 2. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there should be NO detestation of the historical acts of slavers whatsoever: based on the recognition that it was morally right at the time when practiced: but this is not so.

SMH.

Deep Sight: 3. The very same people who here declaim that something such as slavery was NOT intrinsically wrong at the time when practiced, but subjective only, go about mocking and condemning the toleration of slavery by, for example, the biblical God, and others.

Good point. But the point of mocking God is how He claims superior objective morality when humans now know better, than say, to stone a child to death for disobedience - an OT law.

Deep Sight: On what basis do they do this? - - - >

As conscious being who arbiter moral values.

Deep Sight: Notwithstanding that this is, in their opinion, NOT intrinsically wrong, and only entirely subjective.

Sure. Though I fear you NEVER began to understand the importance of my initial post which specufically addressed this point.

Deep Sight: They should rather be silent and contend that whereas they may not like it, there is nothing to condemn because it is a subjective matter.

Your subjectivity. This is Deep Sight's 'is' on the matter which he presents as an 'ought' for subjectivist to take as a contadiction. I say the objectibist shut up if a person can dissent to the objective position. It's almost as if Newton would have to argie for gravity in a world where some things which a thrown up don't come down, no flight, quantum locking etc involved.

Deep Sight: Just as surely as, in the matter of ho.mose.xuality, for example, they similarly may not like it, but do not condemn it as they consider it subjective.

Not all think that way.

Deep Sight: 4. The deepest point in all of this, is that of the meaninglessness of the argument of strict subjective perception. Reygenius alluded to this, and I also posted a link of a response I made to another atheist elsewhere on same subject. In summary, and to be most concise, if the argument of the subjectivists holds true,

Uhum, humor me . . . *takes a huge bite from an apple*

Deep Sight: nobody can ever know anything whatsoever to be objectively true

Lol ! How so ? Please read an earlier point . . .


Apparently he is holding it as an onus on
subjectivists that the majority has no right to tramp a minority if
they truly believe in subjectivity. And I say otherwise precisely
because I think so. I even note later on that the minority may even
win the majority. BTW if his moral absolutism was accurate, we
wouldn't even be arguing, because EVERYONE would be BOUND BY
NATURE to think the same way on moral absolutes. I can imagine
him ignoring this by saying I misunderstand natural law, or asking
questions on things widely held wrong and say therefore moral
absolutes.

Deep Sight: and no argument or statement whatsoever can ever be made: for all things remain strictly within the realm of our subjective perception:

True.

Deep Sight: nothing can be known to be true

Your subjectivity. You are trying hard and FAILING at imposing it on subjectivists.

Deep Sight: This key point is that which is missed here:

Why won't it ? In your view the point make sense. In mine, it don't.

Deep Sight: and indeed is the reason why I say Uyi Iredia has no idea of the subject being discussed here at all. He is truly ignorant of that which he seeks to discuss.

I see. Well ignorance is the precondition to knowledge. Unfortunately for me, and other subjevtivists, you aren't ignorant, you are full of knowledge . . . .













































. . . . where it least matters.

Uyi Iredia:

Laws work fine. Subjective views of many in agreement also work fine as well. In fact, that's precisely the case and precisely why ypu think it objective. It is NOT.



Is this REALLY objective ? And why can't in my subjective view think it legitimate to enforce a subjective view. You best (a lawyer) should know that at times laws impose the subjective views of the legislature interests of a few on the majority. A case in point being California's Prop. 8 deemed unconstitutional by California's Supreme Court.



Yes. But if it is 'objective' I am not imposing any view on a person who thinks differently. Very consistent Mr DS !



Not quite. Moral subjectivity will note that more folks thought it good as at then, AND that there were still people who thought it wrong, more than people give credit BTW. This emotional appeal you like to throw pisses off because I am TOO SURE if you were born then you would possibly think it right. For examole, slavery was once a punitive measure for crimes and debt owed, now we have prisons, and I'm sure you think it right. Consider, a possible future where gay marriage is legalized everywhere and death and prison has been abolished for centuries, I can imagine another silly Deep Sight junior claiming that because moral subjectivity allows that because former views where right as at then, moral subjectivity is horrible. What nonsense !




So ! I will, for example, say r@pe, is wrong ONLY when it is made illegal, WTF !



1. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there would have not been a moral agitation against it, much less one that led to a universal recognition of its abhorrence.

And moral subjectivity allows for that. To the people who think it right, it's right. To those, who think it wrong, it's wrong. This point like others after it is based on a straw man which thinks moral subjectivity makes the majority stance right. Moral subjectivity notes that morality varies by the person, nothing more or less. It doesn't claim the general outlook on a thing determines it's morality, not so, since moral subjectivists would themselves differ on it.



SMH.



Good point. But the point of mocking God is how He claims superior objective morality when humans now know better, than say, to stone a child to death for disobedience - an OT law.




As conscious being who arbiter moral values.



Sure. Though I fear you NEVER began to understand the importance of my initial post which specufically addressed this point.



Your subjectivity. This is Deep Sight's 'is' on the matter which he presents as an 'ought' for subjectivist to take as a contadiction. I say the objectibist shut up if a person can dissent to the objective position. It's almost as if Newton would have to argie for gravity in a world where some things which a thrown up don't come down, no flight, quantum locking etc involved.



Not all think that way.




Uhum, humor me . . . *takes a huge bite from an apple*



Lol ! How so ? Please read an earlier point . . .


Apparently he is holding it as an onus on
subjectivists that the majority has no right to tramp a minority if
they truly believe in subjectivity. And I say otherwise precisely
because I think so. I even note later on that the minority may even
win the majority. BTW if his moral absolutism was accurate, we
wouldn't even be arguing, because EVERYONE would be BOUND BY
NATURE to think the same way on moral absolutes. I can imagine
him ignoring this by saying I misunderstand natural law, or asking
questions on things widely held wrong and say therefore moral
absolutes.



True.



Your subjectivity. You are trying hard and FAILING at imposing it on subjectivists.



Why won't it ? In your view the point make sense. In mine, it don't.



I see. Well ignorance is the precondition to knowledge. Unfortunately for me, and other subjevtivists, you aren't ignorant, you are full of knowledge . . . .













































. . . . where it least matters.

This is very wrong and the contradictions here are many and amazing.

Let us drop the matter for now. I will try to articulate a new thread next week for you and wiegraf, with greater clarity.

Till then, drink a stout on me.

Deep Sight:

Ciao, my dear random amigo. . . and I hope you do not take my barbs and jibes to heart. . . na so I dey play with everybodi. . . .

This is far more annoying than anything else on this thread to me. You need not take my somewhat barbaric mannerisms seriously abeg

Less headache with stout, I've never bothered to find out why...

wiegraf:

This is far more annoying than anything else on this thread to me. You need not take my somewhat barbaric mannerisms seriously abeg

Less headache with stout, I've never bothered to find out why...

Lolzzzzzz...... later bruv

Deep Sight:

Lolzzzzzz...... later bruv

One last thing though. It occurs to me it's rather weird you'd quote yourself like that, unless of course you thought the original post was still there. In other words, you intended to quote yourself in a new post to bring home the point. Instead you accidentally overwrote the ol....

gaddamit you've been drinking again...

Later, good ser...

wiegraf:

One last thing though. It occurs to me it's rather weird you'd quote yourself like that, unless of course you thought the original post was still there. In other words, you intended to quote yourself in a new post to bring home the point. Instead you accidentally overwrote the ol....

gaddamit you've been drinking again...

Later, good ser...

Ohhhhh! I see now! That's actually exactly what happened!

And yes, I was trying to quote myself there - to re-emphasize the point about those things happening at close quarters - which is why I then wrote about my close-quarters experience of last year after quoting myself. . .

Thanks for spotting the error. . . you see? Don't always assume one to be deliberately "lying" or obscuring anything. . . .

I want to ope a new thread over this subjectivity issue and ask some straight questions. . . . when I find the energy.

Deep Sight:

Ohhhhh! I see now! That's actually exactly what happened!

And yes, I was trying to quote myself there - to re-emphasize the point about those things happening at close quarters - which is why I then wrote about my close-quarters experience of last year after quoting myself. . .

Thanks for spotting the error. . . you see? Don't always assume one to be deliberately "lying" or obscuring anything. . . .

I want to ope a new thread over this subjectivity issue and ask some straight questions. . . . when I find the energy.

No vex a beg, I was too hasty with that. Similar folly has actually led to wars.....

And disaster has been averted using similar tricks actually... See JFK

Ah yes, this is random nonsense

Looking forward to the thread

I think that you are either being deliberately obtuse and dubious or genuinely becoming silly. . .

Deep Sight:

Objective Morality against Murder

Objective Morality against R.ape

Have you watched or read Game of Thrones? A simple answer will do pls.

Two simple examples. You enforce them with the enactment of criminal laws and a criminal justice system based on that objective recognition.

If these were subjective, there would NEVER be any legitimate basis to enact such laws and enforce them: for that would amount to nothing more than the imposition of the subjective views of some over others.

wtf is wrong with you? It is subjective that is why laws are required to enforce on the minority who might have different views which may be detrimental to the structure of society.

- - - - -- - - - - - - - -

CONSIDER THIS:

The position of ALL the subjectivists here means that something such as slavery was MORALLY RIGHT at the time that it was practiced - by subjective opinion of those practicing it.

This not my position. My position is that they THOUGHT is morally acceptable. Why we attack christians using slavery is that the quote a moral standard, Yahweh who is supposed to be eternal yet does not display eternal and unchanging morality.

This position renders that it (slavery) ONLY became morally wrong when abolished.

What nonsense is this? Who here made that conclusion?

This is an incredibly irrational position or implication because - >

1. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there would have not been a moral agitation against it, much less one that led to a universal recognition of its abhorrence.

better reasoning. Something you are showing a distinct lack of in this thread. . .

2. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there should be NO detestation of the historical acts of slavers whatsoever: based on the recognition that it was morally right at the time when practiced: but this is not so.

Your own strawman. Hold unto it. . .

3. The very same people who here declaim that something such as slavery was NOT intrinsically wrong at the time when practiced, but subjective only, go about mocking and condemning the toleration of slavery by, for example, the biblical God, and others. On what basis do they do this? - - - >

Better reasoning. Something Yahweh didn't seem capable of. . .

Notwithstanding that this is, in their opinion, NOT intrinsically wrong, and only entirely subjective. They should rather be silent and contend that whereas they may not like it, there is nothing to condemn because it is a subjective matter. Just as surely as, in the matter of ho.mose.xuality, for example, they similarly may not like it, but do not condemn it as they consider it subjective.

4. The deepest point in all of this, is that of the meaninglessness of the argument of strict subjective perception. Reygenius alluded to this, and I also posted a link of a response I made to another atheist elsewhere on same subject. In summary, and to be most concise, if the argument of the subjectivists holds true, nobody can ever know anything whatsoever to be objectively true, and no argument or statement whatsoever can ever be made: for all things remain strictly within the realm of our subjective perception: nothing can be known to be true. This key point is that which is missed here: and indeed is the reason why I say Uyi Iredia has no idea of the subject being discussed here at all. He is truly ignorant of that which he seeks to discuss.

this is your usual nonsense you tried with Plaetton. How does, there's no objective morality translate to there's no objective anything? Can you address issues as they come without your nonsense generalizations?

Ol' boy! Here we go again. Na wa o!

Reyginus: Ol' boy! Here we go again. Na wa o!

Bros, make i no talk again for my thread?

Mr Troll: I think that you are either being deliberately obtuse and dubious or genuinely becoming silly. . .
Have you watched or read Game of Thrones? A simple answer will do pls.

wtf is wrong with you? It is subjective that is why laws are required to enforce on the minority who might have different views which may be detrimental to the structure of society.

This not my position. My position is that they THOUGHT is morally acceptable. Why we attack christians using slavery is that the quote a moral standard, Yahweh who is supposed to be eternal yet does not display eternal and unchanging morality.

yhwh displays eternal and unchanging morality.

Mr Troll: What nonsense is this? Who here made that conclusion?

better reasoning. Something you are showing a distinct lack of in this thread. . .

Your own strawman. Hold unto it. . .

Better reasoning. Something Yahweh didn't seem capable of. . . this is your usual nonsense you tried with Plaetton. How does, there's no objective morality translate to there's no objective anything? Can you address issues as they come without your nonsense generalizations?

smhsmh.

Chei.

Ask yourself what "your basis of the fact that there's no objective morality" is and repeat the bolded question to yourself.



And you keep arrogantly thinking everyone who does not believe this foolishness is stupid.

Joshthefirst: yhwh displays eternal and unchanging morality.

smhsmh.

Chei.

Ask yourself what "your basis of the fact that there's no objective morality" is and repeat the bolded question to yourself.



And you keep arrogantly thinking everyone who does not believe this foolishness is stupid.

bros, to the left. I do not ask anybody to believe anything. That is meant for sheeple like you. If you can't reason outside your religious bubble, stay away.

Btw, You never addressed my answer to your question so i don't see why you are bringing up your nonsense here again.

Mr Troll: bros, to the left. I do not ask anybody to believe anything. That is meant for sheeple like you. If you can't reason outside your religious bubble, stay away.

Btw, You never addressed my answer to your question so i don't see why you are bringing up your nonsense here again.

toh.

Your op was so faulted I let it go. I didn't even know where to start.

Joshthefirst: toh.

Your op was so faulted I let it go. I didn't even know where to start.

lol. Says Joshthefirst. I hear you. Oya bye!

Joshthefirst: you might add the laws set in germany that legally allowed them to kill 11 million people uinder hitler. legally.

To legally rule that other humans were less than human and worthy of elimination was accepted by the majority.

And you have a problem with this?

aManFromMars:

And you have a problem with this?

Abeg park well and read the context of that statement.

Joshthefirst:

Abeg park well and read the context of that statement.

My question still stands.

Gr8 thread. I read from beginning to this point and I think the main reason why non of the parties involved can win this argument on morality is because of their belief systems and inherent mindsets.

How interesting this would be if we can remove these factors and reason only logically.

deleuche: Gr8 thread. I read from beginning to this point and I think the main reason why non of the parties involved can win this argument on morality is because of their belief systems and inherent mindsets.

How interesting this would be if we can remove these factors and reason only logically.

Yeah how interesting the world would be if it was filled with Spock's and Sheldon's. SMH

Bookmarked, interesting thread, really deepsight raised issues that his opponent have not satisfactorily responded to! #

vedaxcool: Bookmarked, interesting thread, really deepsight raised issues that his opponent have not satisfactorily responded too!

He often does.

Mr. Troll, you have wobbled and fumbled and said exactly nothing whatsoever, nor made any cogent point, nor addressed any issue whatsoever.

Please just tell me if my words here below are true or false - - ->

Deep Sight:

Deep Sight argued that a person who says that all morality is strictly subjective only, has no basis for condemning the actions of any other person whatsoever: as they should recognize that that person is governed and should be governed only by his own subjective morality.

This simple point should be enough to end the discussion one way or the other - if you will honestly address it head-on, and seek no escape in meaningless rigmarole.

Your answer? ? ?