@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal My response is Mark Twains quote about arguing with stupid people. Cheers.
English
Mmmme
425 posts
@svelteupapp @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal I just showed you that it undeniably did. You have no response
English
Zzzz another dodge, what a deeply unserious person.
Andrew Wilson@paleochristcon
@TheOmniLiberal Your criticism was that I strawmanned your position about there being no moral facts. I would propose we debate on if in fact I did. I don't in fact think you believe in moral facts so what was the strawman?
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal Thats fine. I honestly would use GPT, Gemni, and etc to explain why the definition of the word makes no claims about subjectivity or objectivity. Cheers
English
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal Sure showed me belief in things make said things subjective automatically. I'm more in the it's neither camp since its hard to demonstrate either way. Though, mainstream philosophy tends to lean towards them objective iirc
English
@svelteupapp @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal As I just demonstrated, morals are inherently subjective according to their definition.
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal You assume that you can only believe in subjective things and that is fine. I don't think there is much else to say is there?
English
@svelteupapp @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal It's right there in black and white. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal No mention of it being subjective or objective. You can site belief but that you can believe in objective or subjective things.
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal The definition does not require subjectivity or objectivity. You are wrong. It does not explicitly state one or the other.
English
@svelteupapp @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal That is not an appeal to ignorance. You are very confused. The definition requires subjectivity. You are wrong.
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal Appeal to ignorance. Also definition makes no assertions to subjectivity or objectivity.
English
@svelteupapp @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal No that's not accurate. By definition, morals are subjective. There is no logical way to establish an objective moral, that makes no sense.
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal The definition makes no claim for objectivity or subjectivity, and human definitions change so you can't use this to falsify. Appeal to ignorance next or what?
English
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal Regarding circles and squares, that is true. Regarding objective morality you would need to demonstrate it is incoherent which you have not done.
English
@svelteupapp @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal If the idea is incoherent, it is falsified. Just like a square circle is falsified.
English
English
@svelteupapp @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal I disagree. The idea of objective morals is incoherent and there is literally no evidence they exist.
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal Objective morality is not a falsifiable position. You can't prove it for the affirmative or negative case using sound logic.
English
English
@nogginnoticer @paleochristcon Going down dark alleyways is not a good idea most times, but sometimes it is. I'm not giving advice. I'm advocating for positions based on my worldview.
English
@paleochristcon that's clearly not what happened here. that's so disingenuous it's actually appalling you'd even make that comparison. anyone with an iq over 80 could decimate you. this is why you only debate retarded of girls. "advocate for positions based on my worldview" that's advice genius.
English
I have come to realize most of my critics build their entire case against me on positions I dont even hold and have never espoused.
English
@KubricklynchYT @caliga0 @TheOmniLiberal They can be, but they can also not be. You see the problem here.
English
@maurodonfisher @TheOmniLiberal Why is Andrew's belief system more objective? At the end of the day his belief system is an amalgam of abstract principles and beliefs just like Destiny's? Apart from that nothing objective separates them.
English
@TheOmniLiberal You can claim it’s a strawman all day long, but the fact is you believe in subjective morality, and therefore, there are no objective moral facts. That’s what Andrew is saying. He’s not super intelligent, but he’s absolutely right about your worldview, you just hate him for it.
English
One of the most pathetic things that I see all of these fake centrist, right-wing podcasters do is just present the most ludicrous strawmans of a person to beat up on their shows like they're actually proving some profound point.
TRIGGERnometry@triggerpod
“From Destiny's standpoint, there's no such thing as a moral fact. None. They don't exist. Everything is dependent upon stance.” What are the philosophical underpinnings behind the left–right divide? Andrew Wilson @paleochristcon breaks it down: moral relativism vs moral realism. Subjective vs objective truth. Rights vs duties. Progress vs tradition. That’s the real clash.
English
@Deathbot_3000 @TheOmniLiberal You have failed to demonstrate objectivity, and there is no need on my part to engage your sophistry further. Cheers
English
@svelteupapp @TheOmniLiberal I just explained the only part that matters. The variability. Here's your dumb moot "point" award tho.
English
People can occupy a ton of different positions whether or not they believe in moral facts. It's the laziest, most 20 IQ high school Christian take to go "oh, this guy doesn't believe in moral facts, therefor everything is arbitrary and trivial and they can believe in anything!!!"
Andrew Wilson@paleochristcon
If you want to debate if you think there are moral facts let me know lol.
English
@Deathbot_3000 @TheOmniLiberal I'll take the W on your morality not being objective. Basically, all your critiques apply to you and whatever subjective religion and subjective denomination you are part of.
English
@svelteupapp @TheOmniLiberal The main difference is that your morality is malleable and can therefore devolve over time, as we have seen.
English
@Deathbot_3000 @TheOmniLiberal It wouldn't be more palatable when it comes to the word objective because the entire belief system is based on authority figure which may or may not exist (not objective). It then just reduces to another utilitarian system that has its pros and cons.
English
@svelteupapp @TheOmniLiberal Perhaps it would be more palatable for you to consider them "objectively good for society." We can look to history for evidence. The purest form of subjective morality is older than theism. By all accounts the free willed "leftists" of that time were eating each other.
English
@Deathbot_3000 @TheOmniLiberal Andrew does not have objective morality either. His morality is rooted God which cannot be proven to exist or not exist, and is therefore not objective.
English
@TheOmniLiberal He's touching the objective vs subjective morality that clearly separates the left and right. It's what leads you freaks to consider pedophilia as just a condition. Why you give them euphemisms like MAPS or why your intellectual leaders advocated for it in the 70s. You are decay.
English
@ApexImperialist You can keep coping all you want. The guy has had a stratospheric rise, and no amount of astroturfing is changing anyones mind.
English
"Young people no longer support Trump" ~ Nick Fuentes.
Nick Fuentes is getting old, and he no longer represents anything youthful. The only people he represents are deranged conspiracy kooks and low-IQ brown people from Pakistan.
English