|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 18:44:14 GMT
tpfkar Sure, I like for the "why" you keep dumping voluminous stupid on threads to be available for anyone reading. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)How would the reasons that I keep dumping voluminous stupid on threads involve stressing something where no one is claiming otherwise? Amen, brother! As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 18:50:28 GMT
tpfkar How would the reasons that I keep dumping voluminous stupid on threads involve stressing something where no one is claiming otherwise? Amen, brother! As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.That's some "how would." I guess you're done with anything approaching a serious conversation for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 18:58:39 GMT
tpfkar Amen, brother! As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.That's some "how would." I guess you're done with anything approaching a serious conversation for the moment. You call "How would the reasons that I keep dumping voluminous stupid on threads involve stressing something where no one is claiming otherwise?" serious conversation? Who knew! Much like your fielding of images that move you one way or another. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 19:02:14 GMT
tpfkar That's some "how would." I guess you're done with anything approaching a serious conversation for the moment. You call "How would the reasons that I keep dumping voluminous stupid on threads involve stressing something where no one is claiming otherwise?" serious conversation? Who knew! Much like your fielding of images that move you one way or another. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.Yeahx It was a serious quesrion, as you're avoiding the same criticism that you're applying to me. Maybe you'd have a good answer, but I can't know that if you won't address it seriously. If you're done, though, that's fine. I'm not interested in posting back and forth with you unless there's some smidgen of an indication to me that you'd seriously address anything.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 19:06:53 GMT
tpfkar You call "How would the reasons that I keep dumping voluminous stupid on threads involve stressing something where no one is claiming otherwise?" serious conversation? Who knew! Much like your fielding of images that move you one way or another. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.Yeahx It was a serious quesrion, as you're avoiding the same criticism that you're applying to me. Maybe you'd have a good answer, but I can't know that if you won't address it seriously. If you're done, though, that's fine. I'm not interested in posting back and forth with you unless there's some smidgen of an indication to me that you'd seriously address anything. It's your patent endless spiral into obtuse chatter. And who are you claiming is asserting a philosophical objective and not claiming otherwise? If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 19:11:37 GMT
tpfkar It was a serious quesrion, as you're avoiding the same criticism that you're applying to me. Maybe you'd have a good answer, but I can't know that if you won't address it seriously. If you're done, though, that's fine. I'm not interested in posting back and forth with you unless there's some smidgen of an indication to me that you'd seriously address anything. It's your patent endless spiral into obtuse chatter. And who are you claiming is asserting a philosophical objective and not claiming otherwise? If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)What? The idea is asserting that P when no one is claiming that not P. P in this case is about being incarcerated etc. for adult-minor sex.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 19:18:00 GMT
tpfkar It's your patent endless spiral into obtuse chatter. And who are you claiming is asserting a philosophical objective and not claiming otherwise? If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)What? The idea is asserting that P when no one is claiming that not P. P in this case is about being incarcerated etc. for adult-minor sex. Preach it, sister! In any case, I point out - 1) your constant semantic prates about "that's subjective" when no one's claiming a philosophical objective, 2) why you keep doing it, regardless of whether you "haven't claimed otherwise". and will do so any of the likely many times you start nattering on about "it's just subjective". When I feel like it, of course. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 19:25:41 GMT
tpfkar What? The idea is asserting that P when no one is claiming that not P. P in this case is about being incarcerated etc. for adult-minor sex. Preach it, sister! In any case, I point out - 1) your constant semantic prates about "that's subjective" when no one's claiming a philosophical objective, 2) why you keep doing it, regardless of whether you "haven't claimed otherwise". and will do so any of the likely many times you start nattering on about "it's just subjective". When I feel like it, of course. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.Right, so what about "semantic prates" re "you'll be incarcerated" when no one's claiming otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 19:30:04 GMT
tpfkar Preach it, sister! In any case, I point out - 1) your constant semantic prates about "that's subjective" when no one's claiming a philosophical objective, 2) why you keep doing it, regardless of whether you "haven't claimed otherwise". and will do so any of the likely many times you start nattering on about "it's just subjective". When I feel like it, of course. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.Right, so what about "semantic prates" re "you'll be incarcerated" when no one's claiming otherwise? It's ok with me that you admit it. 1) I don't care what you think is "fruitful" or not, of course. 2) The reply was specifically to your reply again nattering on "subjective", when all judgement is subjective, yapping about objective weights which don't exist, and silly gassing like nothing "really" counts as progress. 3) In fact we can and do attach the notion of progress to evolution in a positive direction. 4) It's a fact that those listed things, much like flourishing are all considered positives by those we consider to be halfway not bent. 5) Regardless of what you'd like, gassing about "it's popular" doesn't magically equalize any bent "opinion" anybody has. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2018 19:46:54 GMT
Saying "morality is evolving therefore its subjective" is like saying "our models of the universe has evolved therefore it is subjective". If you think geocentrism is wrong is a fact then you are in fact wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 19:58:33 GMT
tpfkar Right, so what about "semantic prates" re "you'll be incarcerated" when no one's claiming otherwise? It's ok with me that you admit it. 1) I don't care what you think is "fruitful" or not, of course. 2) The reply was specifically to your reply again nattering on "subjective", when all judgement is subjective, yapping about objective weights which don't exist, and silly gassing like nothing "really" counts as progress. 3) In fact we can and do attach the notion of progress to evolution in a positive direction. 4) It's a fact that those listed things, much like flourishing are all considered positives by those we consider to be halfway not bent. 5) Regardless of what you'd like, gassing about "it's popular" doesn't magically equalize any bent "opinion" anybody has. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)If you agree that all judgments are subjective, how would anything really count as progress?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 20:00:47 GMT
Saying "morality is evolving therefore its subjective" is like saying "our models of the universe has evolved therefore it is subjective". If you think geocentrism is wrong is a fact then you are in fact wrong! I don't know if you were thinking that I said something like "Morality is evolving, therefore morality is subjective." I instead pointed out that morality is subjective, morality is of course always changing, and evolution doesn't conventionally pick out anything to do with progress, because what counts as progress is also subjective.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 20:01:35 GMT
tpfkar It's ok with me that you admit it. 1) I don't care what you think is "fruitful" or not, of course. 2) The reply was specifically to your reply again nattering on "subjective", when all judgement is subjective, yapping about objective weights which don't exist, and silly gassing like nothing "really" counts as progress. 3) In fact we can and do attach the notion of progress to evolution in a positive direction. 4) It's a fact that those listed things, much like flourishing are all considered positives by those we consider to be halfway not bent. 5) Regardless of what you'd like, gassing about "it's popular" doesn't magically equalize any bent "opinion" anybody has. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)If you agree that all judgments are subjective, how would anything really count as progress? Because not based on a nonexistent philosophical "objective" doesn't mean nonexistent, of course. It's like talking to a stump. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 20:05:02 GMT
tpfkar If you agree that all judgments are subjective, how would anything really count as progress? Because not based on a nonexistent philosophical "objective" doesn't mean nonexistent, of course. It's like talking to a stump. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.You know that the word "really" is a way of saying, "in reality," in the sense of "factually, contra opinions about it," right? Obviously no one thinks that there aren't any opinions about what counts as progress. You don't say, "Joe feels that counts as progress, so that really counts as progress, because Joe feels that way about it." That doesn't gel with conventional usage of "really."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 20:05:33 GMT
tpfkar Saying "morality is evolving therefore its subjective" is like saying "our models of the universe has evolved therefore it is subjective". If you think geocentrism is wrong is a fact then you are in fact wrong! I don't know if you were thinking that I said something like "Morality is evolving, therefore morality is subjective." I instead pointed out that morality is subjective, morality is of course always changing, and evolution doesn't conventionally pick out anything to do with progress, because what counts as progress is also subjective. "evolution doesn't conventionally pick out anything to do with progress" is incoherent silliness. evolution doesn't conventionally pick out anything to do with progress
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 20:07:51 GMT
tpfkar I don't know if you were thinking that I said something like "Morality is evolving, therefore morality is subjective." I instead pointed out that morality is subjective, morality is of course always changing, and evolution doesn't conventionally pick out anything to do with progress, because what counts as progress is also subjective. "evolution doesn't conventionally pick out anything to do with progress" is incoherent silliness. evolution doesn't conventionally pick out anything to do with progressYou're simply advertising that you don't read very well. I'm talking about the referents (that's not a misspelling, it's the plural of the word "referent") of the word "evolution," per usage conventions (well, at least educated usage conventions).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 20:11:11 GMT
tpfkar Because not based on a nonexistent philosophical "objective" doesn't mean nonexistent, of course. It's like talking to a stump. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.You know that the word "really" is a way of saying, "in reality," in the sense of "factually, contra opinions about it," right? Obviously no one thinks that there aren't any opinions about what counts as progress. You don't say, "Joe feels that counts as progress, so that really counts as progress, because Joe feels that way about it." That doesn't gel with conventional usage of "really." Hopefully Joe wouldn't say that because it's a rambling mess. Evolution in a positive direction is progress just as we might say devolution, or evolution in a negative direction would be a setback. And no, what the utterly bent who quibble that their "flourishing" might not be positive think doesn't change the weight one whit. 1) I don't care what you think is "fruitful" or not, of course. 2) The reply was specifically to your reply again nattering on "subjective", when all judgement is subjective, yapping about objective weights which don't exist, and silly gassing like nothing "really" counts as progress. 3) In fact we can and do attach the notion of progress to evolution in a positive direction. 4) It's a fact that those listed things, much like flourishing are all considered positives by those we consider to be halfway not bent. 5) Regardless of what you'd like, gassing about "it's popular" doesn't magically equalize any bent "opinion" anybody has. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 20:15:38 GMT
tpfkar You know that the word "really" is a way of saying, "in reality," in the sense of "factually, contra opinions about it," right? Obviously no one thinks that there aren't any opinions about what counts as progress. You don't say, "Joe feels that counts as progress, so that really counts as progress, because Joe feels that way about it." That doesn't gel with conventional usage of "really." Hopefully Joe wouldn't say that because it's a rambling mess. Evolution in a positive direction is progress just as we might say devolution, or evolution in a negative direction would be a setback. And no, what the utterly bent who quibble that their "flourishing" might not be positive think doesn't change the weight one whit. 1) I don't care what you think is "fruitful" or not, of course. 2) The reply was specifically to your reply again nattering on "subjective", when all judgement is subjective, yapping about objective weights which don't exist, and silly gassing like nothing "really" counts as progress. 3) In fact we can and do attach the notion of progress to evolution in a positive direction. 4) It's a fact that those listed things, much like flourishing are all considered positives by those we consider to be halfway not bent. 5) Regardless of what you'd like, gassing about "it's popular" doesn't magically equalize any bent "opinion" anybody has. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.Are you afraid to let me hear your voice, by the way? You didn't respond to my private message.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2018 20:16:07 GMT
Saying "morality is evolving therefore its subjective" is like saying "our models of the universe has evolved therefore it is subjective". If you think geocentrism is wrong is a fact then you are in fact wrong! I don't know if you were thinking that I said something like "Morality is evolving, therefore morality is subjective." I instead pointed out that morality is subjective, morality is of course always changing, and evolution doesn't conventionally pick out anything to do with progress, because what counts as progress is also subjective. I was actually responding to the OP.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 20:16:46 GMT
tpfkar You're simply advertising that you don't read very well. I'm talking about the referents (that's not a misspelling, it's the plural of the word "referent") of the word "evolution," per usage conventions (well, at least educated usage conventions). Evolution doesn't pick anything, ever-gibbering dude. "Education" aside. You're simply advertising that you don't read very well.
|
|