₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
I don't think you should. To me you are just playing at avoiding the word subjective. Something cannot be objectively one thing and an opposite thing. This is exactly why objective morality cannot exist. Morality tends to be flexible because it is people giving value judgements. If those judgements are objectively 1 way then they cannot be flexible to change. Trying to make objective assume that position of flexibility is nothing but mental gymnastics and I am not interested in that.

I will make an attempt. I have enough respect for you to do that.

LordReed:
That is what you said in essence. I asked you if lying is objectively wrong and you said yes but there times when it is objectively right. So you're telling me that morality can be objectively right and wrong in essence.

I will make an attempt to explain better later today and hope it gets through to you.

Jakumo:
Bob Lazar evokes two distinct reactions in all who hear his accounts detailing his reverse engineering of an alien flying saucer in a secret military research facility, dating back to the late 1980s. On the one hand, many are skeptical of Bob Lazar and consider him a fantasist, while on the other hand, just as many people like me are absolutely convinced that Bob Lazar did in fact work studying captured UFO at the top secret Area 51 military base in the Nevada desert.

Time will tell whether Mr. Lazar is vindicated or exposed as an imaginative teller of tall tales.

That UFOs which are intelligently guided extra terrestrial craft exist in our world is for me no longer disputable. It's a reality.

LordReed:
The fact you can give such an example and still think morality is both objectively wrong and right tells me all I need to know about the mental gymnastics on this you are running in your mind. LoLz. Chei!

I am honestly befuddled that you can't see the point. Honestly. We leave it.

PS: Don't misquote me. I haven't said the bold anywhere.

PPS: And LordReed, that anyone could mangle what I said and convert it into the incongruous balderdash in bold must be the eight wonder of the world.

LordReed:
No I am the one disappointed that you resorted to this juvenile attempt at mental gymnastics to claim something can be objectively right and wrong. Truly disappointed.

So you are telling me that an assessment that a person who kills in self defence has done no wrong is necessarily subjective.

Enjoy, Mr. Adult.

Image123:
Understandable if it all belongs to Him and He is sovereign.

More understandable when it is actually an imaginary pagan tribal mountain deity.

LordReed:
Guy you are contradicting yourself. You cannot claim something is objectively wrong sometimes and also objectively right other times. That is not how that word works. You have word for that situation it is called subjective, use it instead of this gymnastics you're doing. LoLz.

Subjective is different from situational. Subjective has to do with differing personal feelings. Situational is what I am describing and it has to do with differing circumstances.

It's disappointing that you of all people cannot grasp this simple distinction, but no matter.

Veste:
Marry a nigerian, Ghana or Zimbabwe woman in the USA, UK or Canada and regret your life. I warn those planning to do it now or in the future.

Why these three countries and not other African countries?

Image123:
What is man that God is mindful of him? The Psalmist asked this same rhetorical question, but went on to the fact that He still did.

Understandable if God is mindful of his soul. Incomprehensible for God to be mindful of his beard.

LordReed:
Is lying objectively wrong?

I don't know how many times you want me to say the same thing. Generally, yes. But there are circumstances in which it can be objectively justified.

Just as killing is generally wrong. But there are circumstances in which it can be objectively justified.

The same goes for most things we can call wrong.

DelilahMakinde:
I can't add it.

Because that is what I live for....not bc of any man oooo..

I love women wearing very high heels.
Can't stand excess make up etc.

LordReed:
So explain how something based on fact is changing. Use the example you gave about hiding Jews from Nazis and lying about it. What is the objective that is based on fact and why is it changing in this scenario.

Very simple. Consider the act of lying. One can objectively determine if a lie is told. So the Jews are hiding in my basement. The Nazis come and ask "Are there any Jewish vermin in these premises?" I say no.

That is a lie, objectively speaking. And it is a fact that it is a lie.

The moral question then arises: was telling that lie wrong?

Again, we know that the Nazis were committing genocide/ ethnic cleansing against the Jews. Objectively speaking that was wrong. It is a fact that that was wrong.

So objectively speaking my lie to protect those Jews was justified. This is not a matter of opinion. It is an objective fact.

Now let's change the scenario. Let's say those Jews hiding in my basement were wanted for proven murder. And let's say there was no genocide/ ethnic cleansing going on, but the police legitimately wanted them on valid grounds.

With these changed set of circumstances the same act - telling a lie to say they are not there - will be objectively wrong. Again this is not a matter of opinion.

Same with shooting someone dead. If I was attacked, the same act would be justified objectively. If I wasn't, the same act could be condemned objectively.

It worries me that a man of your intellect struggles with something so simple. Yes, I know the question of objective and subjective morality is a delicate and nuanced one. Nonetheless it can't be hard to see that the circumstances can and do change the moral and legal characterization of an act. Objectively. Not by opinion. Not subjectively.

Even though I should hasten to add that aside from this, of course people can and do have subjective opinions of such scenarios.

Jakumo:
Bob Lazar will go down in history as the first US scientist to break the decades-old code of silence that has been maintained by the US government when it comes to UFOs and alien technology. This is a recently uncovered archival 1997 interview with Bob Lazar, who is incidentally still very much alive and in robust health.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmclCzGFotM

Coincidentally in 1997 when the above Bob Lazar interview was recorded, thousands of residents of Phoenix Arizona witnessed a gargantuan triangle-shaped UFO that glided SILENTLY over the city at a slow walking pace, often just above the treetops as stunned observers looked on. Below is a brilliantly evocative AI rendition of the Phoenix Lights event, which I have posted under this topic before, yet attains a new relevance in light of this newly-unearthed Bob Lazar interview's 1997 date.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBbEzGIKpLs

Phoenix Lights were quite an event. Former US President Jimmy Carter observed them personally and testified to the reality.

Bob Lazar has been called into question on many fronts though.

Image123:
i'm guessing that i need an update or i'm missing something about DeepS, or maybe it was another person then. i don't expect the other one to ask this type of question or claim a Bible passage is meaningless. Anyhoo, incase it is the same DeepS, let me give a more detailed answer.

Lev 19:26  Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. 
Lev 19:27  Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 
Lev 19:28  Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. 

i'll quote a commentary (what i supposed the other DeepS would have done earlier) instead of reinventing the wheel. These were laws against the superstitious usages of the heathen around them and God didn't want them practising or imitating such customs.
Those that worshipped the hosts of heaven, in honour of them, cut their hair so as that their heads might resemble the celestial globe; but, as the custom was foolish itself, so, being done with respect to their false gods, it was idolatrous. 4. The rites and ceremonies by which they expressed their sorrow at their funerals must not be imitated. That was what was referenced here according to Bible scholars.

Similar like you stated in
Lev 21:5  They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
He was referring here to some practices heathen people did for the dead which the people of God should not imitate. The heathen cut off their hair, and let out their blood, in honour of the imaginary deities which presided (as they thought) in the congregation of the dead, that they might engage them to be propitious to their departed friends. The Israelites were not to copy this. The same principle is applicable to new testament christians who should be circumspect in their practices and distinct/peculiar compared to others.
By the way, omnipotence is not directly linked to meaning or justification, you may try sovereignty instead. There's a lot of apparent meaninglessness in the planet and the universe in our limited understanding. These don't negate omnipotence if it is the ability to DO.

All of this would be meaningless to an omnipotent, omniscient and transcendental creator of all that exists.

It is simply too petty and nonsensical for such a God.

LordReed:
LoLz. This is why sometimes it is good to ask for definitions. Something is objective means it cannot change based on any subjective consideration. If you do not agree then tell me what you think objective means.

What is objective is based on facts while what is subjective is based on emotions and opinions.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commonly-confused-words/objective-vs-subjective/

We can use law as a guide as law is rational.

In law, the same action (e.g: shooting a person dead) can objectively be deemed good or bad depending on the circumstances. As you know, if self defense is involved, the moral and legal nature of that same act changes at once - objectively.

So while it is true as you say that what is objective cannot change based on a subjective consideration, its moral or legal characterization can change based on circumstances - and that remains an objective consideration.

This is iron clad, indubitable, inescapable and absolutely beyond cavil.

"Set to . . . ."

LordReed:
If the the morality of an act can vary then it CANNOT be objective. Its quite simple. I am wondering how someone like you can even attempt to use this as an argument.

I am also befuddled that someone of your pedigree cannot grasp the simple fact that every act must be assessed based on circumstances around it. This is elementary in law. Do we say the law is subjective or non objective since it adjudges similar acts differently based on circumstances? Come on, you are better schooled than this.

Are you saying that it is not objective to take self defence into consideration in assessing a killing, for example?
Good grief.

Tell me someone has hacked into your account. Is this Olaadegbu?

LordReed:
LMAO! How can something be both objectively right and wrong. Dude please! Bwahahahahahahaha.

It seems to me you have started drinking the JD I fined you.

I was clear: the same act can be wrong in one situation and right in another.

E.G: Killing is an act. It can be wrong when unprovoked and done maliciously. It can be right when done in self defense or pursuant to a court order. Lying is an act. It can be wrong when done fraudulently for pecuniary gain. It can be right when done to protect the innocent (example of protecting Jews from Nazis was given). I can go on and on here. What is odd or funny or hard to understand about this?

Image123:
Where's the law, that's what i ask.

The most commonly cited verse is in Leviticus 19:27: "You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you mar the edges of your beard."

Another related verse is Leviticus 21:5, which applies specifically to priests: "They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh."

Ikaeniyan0:
But you claimed he has not held any

One in two years is abominable.

Agbegbaorogboye:
I watched the video. It only confirms the highway of fraud
The guy couldn't go beyond 11km

What I have come to realize is that for some people, even if the leader they support has a blade held at their jugular, they will keep shouting his or her praises.

agulion:
Tinubu will handle economy and shatima will handle security, my brother if you are deceived again in 2027, then it means you are a born fool

On this forum we have seen people saying they will vote Tinubu because he is Yoruba. We have a long way to go.

LordReed:
Who is making the judgement on whether the situation fits or not?

For you, it will boil down to a subjective thing still. But for those of us who believe in objective morality, there will be situations were something is objectively right and situations where the same thing is objectively wrong.

A very simple example is killing a fellow human. While generally wrong, situations such as the need for self defence, or the presence of over arching provocation can objectively justify or mitigate it.

I will address that later.

Failure to do so as is your wont will attract 17.5 lashes of a bullwhip and one bottle of Jack Daniel as a fine.

Image123:
Context?

What context justifies such a meaningless law being laid down by an omnipotent creator.

EFCC should leave this spraying thing jaare.
If they are serious about it, let them enter strip clubs.

It's such a lousy waste of time and resources when there are serious cases to face.

anonimi:
What is the helicopter in Gambia story about? Make una give us the gist o

There was a video in circulation sometime ago, before the election with BAT and Sanwo Olu in a helicopter in Guinea in circumstances that looked rather questionable about their dealings.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fln6iWNe2SY

HelenaWills:
. Yes.
As far as Tinubu is the flagbearer or any ọmọlúwàbí at all

Honestly our country can never make progress so long as its people think the way you think. We need to rise above tribe and religion. If we can't, just forget anything like progress.

LordReed:
You aren't answering the distinction between relative and subjective.

Subjective is simply someone's personal feeling or notion as opposed to what remains true regardless of it. Relative is situational. For example it might be wrong to do an act in one situation but right in another.

Now that I have put that away, do you see the point on mala in se and mala prohibita?

okito:
Jide, stop fooling yourself!

3. Plan to unseat 1st lady in favor of AA for reasons you know.

Pls expatiate on this, I dont understand.

Keep begging your father with GAC who themselves are in the black book but one thing is sure, if your father gets a 2nd term, you have no place in his government; executive or legislative.

Sanwo is young, he has a future beyond the lifetime of BAT.

tit:
If I remember the helicopter in Gambia, I know nothing can come between you

GBAM!

LordReed:
One is wrong in of itself and one is wrong because there is law making it wrong.

Still carrying forward the argument that something is inherently wrong which is already the bone of contention.

Good. So that at least makes it clear that even within the philosophy of something as rational as the law, that is to say, within jurisprudence, it is well understood that there is a distinction between acts that are inherently wrong (and thus not wrong merely by any subjective consideration) and acts that are only prescribed as wrong for the smooth functioning and order of society.

I therefore say to you that the very precept of mala in se gives us to know that certain things are objectively and inherently wrong regardless of any subjective opinion.

The worst president in the history of Nigeria. Who would have thought Buhari could be better than Tinubu?