Messages

Im a humanities major, and i think that hard sciences arent "king" in my field.

But oh, when it comes to medicine and technology, i do not wish to, nor i can, argue against it.

One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.

Please tell me, if you will, how hypothesis testing is flawed. Please tell me how the scientific method is unable with confidence to test and retest every falsifiable hypothesis provided the technology is available. Because this bullshit is getting on my nerves, and you continue to say science is flawed over and over without providing any evidence of how the scientific method is unable to be used with confidence.

Yes, im eager to hear that too.

Guy, apology accepted, but for today im done arguing about morality.

Just, gawd, when im in the middle of arguing seriously with someone i dont break out into pinealistic gibberish or monkey behaviour, it wrecks the whole atmosphere.

ETA:  You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.

Get a room them.  Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.

A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.

Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it!  I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate.  Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.

Well, you certainly have the passive/aggressive thing down pat.

Look, I can either take it on the chin like a bitch or give it right back to you guys.  What's with the do as I say not as a I do thing?   Oh, right, your morality is more valid than mine.

Why don't I start a new thread about the morality thing, maybe we can have a more manageable discussion.

[Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.]

ETA:  You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.

Get a room them.  Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.

A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.

Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it!  I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate.  Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.

ETA:  You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.

Get a room them.  Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.

A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.

I take the Aristotelian position that happiness is the higher good. That said, I enjoy the hell out of being an asshole.

Your take is more like Max Stirner's.

I like Stirner. I don't necessarily totally agree with him, but I too am strongly individualistic. Why did you think we're similar?

The part that completely disregards others. 

No.  Mine is more valid.

See how that works?

I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:


[Edit: This is just nihilism.  Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]

How can one be self-centered and a nihilist at the same time?

I am neither.  As a Mexica Rain God, the normal rules do not apply to me.

Yes i know oh Rain God, all dualisms and parallels become One in you!

No.  Mine is more valid.

See how that works?

I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:


[Edit: This is just nihilism.  Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]

How can one be self-centered and a nihilist at the same time?

[2. (countable and uncountable): A person's implicit set of preferences, especially esthetic, though also culinary, sartorial, etc.]

Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.

I have a moral system, others have different ones.

Now you're just being glib.  I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological.  You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste.  You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones."  Are they all equally valid?

taste (countable and uncountable; plural tastes)

  1. One of the sensations produced by the tongue in response to certain chemicals.
  2. (countable and uncountable): A person's implicit set of preferences, especially esthetic, though also culinary, sartorial, etc.

Yes, it is like taste; although from my subjective perspective, a lot of people's "taste" sucks.

When old bonebags say of the younger generations "these kids have no morals", its a lack of recognition that these "kids" have different appreciations of what is right and wrong.

Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.

I have a moral system, others have different ones.

morality (countable and uncountable; plural moralities)

   1. (uncountable) Recognition of the distinction between good and evil or between right and wrong; respect for and obedience to the rules of right conduct; the mental disposition or characteristic of behaving in a manner intended to produce morally good results.

Objective Morality: what some noob by his "superior knowledge" claims to be THE TRUTH about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.

Why do I think this is directed at me?  n00bzor though I may be, I have no place claimed to have superior knowledge, expect as opposed to the odd asshat who doesn't bother with thinking.  Also, my criteria for objective morality throughout these posts, is that it be accessible to all equal, by means of conscience or intuition.  Or maybe it wasn't direct at me after all, since it seems to be so absurdly unapt (apart from my reckless noobitry).

I was speaking on a general note, it wasnt a jab at you.

I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention.  Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.

Id like to make a differentation between "objective morality" and a "group contract".

Objective morality referes to "THE TRUTH" that everyone should stick to.

While a "group contract" like constitutions or laws are just what a group of people find more convenient and pragmatic (supposedly).

Yes, that's it, the social contract is something totally separate and distinct from morality, in fact the two have nothing to do with one another.  Morality cannot possibly inform the social contract, and while we're at it let's just say the end's justify the means as well.

Italics are for my evil alter ego, too.

You were doing well, until you added the "ends justify the means" because that is not at all related.

Dont crap up my style.

And you are twisting my words, because i was talking about "objective morality" not morality in itself.

I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention.  Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.

Id like to make a differentation between "objective morality" and a "group contract".

Objective morality referes to "THE TRUTH" that everyone should stick to.

While a "group contract" like constitutions or laws are just what a group of people find more convenient and pragmatic (supposedly).

Yes that is why I have trouble grapsing what Objective Morality actually is

Objective Morality: what some noob by his "superior knowledge" claims to be THE TRUTH about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.