PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 17:28:49 GMT
1.I dont think you know what metaphysics is. 2.I don't think anybody would deny that certain people have different models of reality and each person would have a different model of reality. I don't think that is the conventional definitioln of subjective. 1. If you don't understand what I'm saying, just say so. 2. How about you explain why you think ethics are objective. 1.I think it's you who doesn't understand. Ethics is not metaphysics. Read this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics2.First you should define what you mean by objective because I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 27, 2017 17:44:04 GMT
1. If you don't understand what I'm saying, just say so. 2. How about you explain why you think ethics are objective. 1.I think it's you who doesn't understand. Ethics is not metaphysics. Read this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics2.First you should define what you mean by objective because I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here. 1. I never said ethics=metaphysics. I said it was a metaphysical concept. But you're right, I should've gone with "abstract" instead. 2. Why should I always go first? I have already explained quite meticulously what I mean by "subjective", since you asked. When I was done explaining, I asked you to explain why you feel ethics are objective. You should be able to do that irrespective of my understanding of "objective". But instead of answering, you ask me what I mean by "objective". Not feeling the reciprocity, here.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 18:03:20 GMT
1.I think it's you who doesn't understand. Ethics is not metaphysics. Read this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics2.First you should define what you mean by objective because I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here. 1. I never said ethics=metaphysics. I said it was a metaphysical concept. But you're right, I should've gone with "abstract" instead. 2. Why should I always go first? I have already explained quite meticulously what I mean by "subjective", since you asked. When I was done explaining, I asked you to explain why you feel ethics are objective. You should be able to do that irrespective of my understanding of "objective". But instead of answering, you ask me what I mean by "objective". Not feeling the reciprocity, here. I already explained why. Why should I even bother responding to you if I am not even sure if we are talking about the same thing?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 27, 2017 18:04:25 GMT
1.I think it's you who doesn't understand. Ethics is not metaphysics. Read this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics2.First you should define what you mean by objective because I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here. 1. I never said ethics=metaphysics. I said it was a metaphysical concept. But you're right, I should've gone with "abstract" instead. 2. Why should I always go first? I have already explained quite meticulously what I mean by "subjective", since you asked. When I was done explaining, I asked you to explain why you feel ethics are objective. You should be able to do that irrespective of my understanding of "objective". But instead of answering, you ask me what I mean by "objective". Not feeling the reciprocity, here. You always have to go first because when you finally get him to explain what he means it turns out he was as wrong as he could possibly be and when you show him he was wrong he has to avoid commenting again.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 27, 2017 18:25:31 GMT
1. I never said ethics=metaphysics. I said it was a metaphysical concept. But you're right, I should've gone with "abstract" instead. 2. Why should I always go first? I have already explained quite meticulously what I mean by "subjective", since you asked. When I was done explaining, I asked you to explain why you feel ethics are objective. You should be able to do that irrespective of my understanding of "objective". But instead of answering, you ask me what I mean by "objective". Not feeling the reciprocity, here. I already explained why. Why should I even bother responding to you if I am not even sure if we are talking about the same thing? It will be perfectly clear if we have the same understanding of the word if only you will explain why it is you feel ethics are objective. I asked you a direct question and you stubbornly refuse to answer, and it is starting to look very much indeed like gadreel nailed the reason why.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 18:30:04 GMT
I already explained why. Why should I even bother responding to you if I am not even sure if we are talking about the same thing? It will be perfectly clear if we have the same understanding of the word if only you will explain why it is you feel ethics are objective. I asked you a direct question and you stubbornly refuse to answer, and it is starting to look very much indeed like gadreel nailed the reason why. What would be the point of that? If we aren't talking about the same thing then you wouldn't even know that my arguments would not be meant to prove what you would call objective and I would have wasted my time.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 27, 2017 18:32:00 GMT
It will be perfectly clear if we have the same understanding of the word if only you will explain why it is you feel ethics are objective. I asked you a direct question and you stubbornly refuse to answer, and it is starting to look very much indeed like gadreel nailed the reason why. What would be the point of that? If we aren't talking about the same thing then you wouldn't even know that my arguments would not be meant to prove what you would call objective and I would have wasted my time. That would be made clear by your arguments. I managed to convey my meaning of subjective just fine, without knowing your definition (which I still don't), why can't you do the same?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 18:38:36 GMT
What would be the point of that? If we aren't talking about the same thing then you wouldn't even know that my arguments would not be meant to prove what you would call objective and I would have wasted my time. That would be made clear by your arguments. I managed to convey my meaning of subjective just fine, without knowing your definition (which I still don't), why can't you do the same? Imagine there are two people each one is handed a box. They are told to look into there box and not show the other person what is in tuere box. Person A says the contents of the box has quality x. Person B says the contents of the box have quality y not X. Person A asks for the arguments in favor if the contents having quality y. Person B declines to answer as he believes that it would be pointless because they aren't even sure they have the same content in the box,, for they know A could have oranges and B could have bananas. Who is right Person A or B?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 27, 2017 18:44:22 GMT
That would be made clear by your arguments. I managed to convey my meaning of subjective just fine, without knowing your definition (which I still don't), why can't you do the same? Imagine there are two people each one is handed a box. They are told to look into there box and not show the other person what is in tuere box. Person A says the contents of the box has quality x. Person B says the contents of the box have quality y not X. Person A asks for the arguments in favor if the contents having quality y. Person B declines to answer as he believes that it would be pointless because they aren't even sure they have the same content in the box,, for they know A could have oranges and B could have bananas. Who is right Person A or B? You are truly the master of obfuscation and avoidance. all you have ever had to do was honestly present your stance. I had to ask you 4 times one simple question and when you answered it and I corrected you, you had to avoid me. Same thing with your obsession with pedophilia. if you are not interested in actually presenting your stance, why are you bothering to get into debates?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 18:51:48 GMT
Imagine there are two people each one is handed a box. They are told to look into there box and not show the other person what is in tuere box. Person A says the contents of the box has quality x. Person B says the contents of the box have quality y not X. Person A asks for the arguments in favor if the contents having quality y. Person B declines to answer as he believes that it would be pointless because they aren't even sure they have the same content in the box,, for they know A could have oranges and B could have bananas. Who is right Person A or B? You are truly the master of obfuscation and avoidance. all you have ever had to do was honestly present your stance. I had to ask you 4 times one simple question and when you answered it and I corrected you, you had to avoid me. Same thing with your obsession with pedophilia. if you are not interested in actually presenting your stance, why are you bothering to get into debates? Considering you just avoided my question there I find that ironic. What do you mean "Srame thing with your obsession with pedophilia."? What question did I ignore four times?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 27, 2017 18:55:53 GMT
You are truly the master of obfuscation and avoidance. all you have ever had to do was honestly present your stance. I had to ask you 4 times one simple question and when you answered it and I corrected you, you had to avoid me. Same thing with your obsession with pedophilia. if you are not interested in actually presenting your stance, why are you bothering to get into debates? Considering you just avoided my question there I find that ironic. What do you mean "Srame thing with your obsession with pedophilia."? What question did I ignore four times? You did not ask me that question. I mean that I asked you what age you consider appropriate and you were unable to answer. The question of please provide an objective ethical stance, the question of what age do you consider appropriate, the question of is 'utiliy' actually 'utilitarianism' and then, of course you avoided any response when I showed you that utilitarianism is 100% subjective.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 19:01:04 GMT
Considering you just avoided my question there I find that ironic. What do you mean "Srame thing with your obsession with pedophilia."? What question did I ignore four times? You did not ask me that question. I mean that I asked you what age you consider appropriate and you were unable to answer. The question of please provide an objective ethical stance, the question of what age do you consider appropriate, the question of is 'utiliy' actually 'utilitarianism' and then, of course you avoided any response when I showed you that utilitarianism is 100% subjective. Re pedophilia: Ah ok your grammar was poor so I wasn't sure what you were saying. If I remember correctly I answered the question but you continued repeating the question. You already knew what objective ethical stances I believed in so I just ignored that question.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 27, 2017 19:30:01 GMT
You did not ask me that question. I mean that I asked you what age you consider appropriate and you were unable to answer. The question of please provide an objective ethical stance, the question of what age do you consider appropriate, the question of is 'utiliy' actually 'utilitarianism' and then, of course you avoided any response when I showed you that utilitarianism is 100% subjective. Re pedophilia: Ah ok your grammar was poor so I wasn't sure what you were saying. If I remember correctly I answered the question but you continued repeating the question. You already knew what objective ethical stances I believed in so I just ignored that question. you answered neither question. You responded to each question, but as with this thread your answers were so vague as to have no meaning. Given the utility is not objective as I have shown you, can you provide an objective ethical example? EDIT: by the way my grammar was excellent, you are just trying to dodge, a reasonable poster would have asked me to be clearer if they had trouble comprehending what I wrote.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 19:53:01 GMT
Re pedophilia: Ah ok your grammar was poor so I wasn't sure what you were saying. If I remember correctly I answered the question but you continued repeating the question. You already knew what objective ethical stances I believed in so I just ignored that question. EDIT: by the way my grammar was excellent, you are just trying to dodge, a reasonable poster would have asked me to be clearer if they had trouble comprehending what I wrote. That's exactly what I did.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 27, 2017 20:50:34 GMT
EDIT: by the way my grammar was excellent, you are just trying to dodge, a reasonable poster would have asked me to be clearer if they had trouble comprehending what I wrote. That's exactly what I did. and still you could not answer the questions.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 27, 2017 21:02:52 GMT
Re pedophilia: Ah ok your grammar was poor so I wasn't sure what you were saying. If I remember correctly I answered the question but you continued repeating the question. From the poster who wrote this: And this poster called others "Dunning-Krugeroids". You can't make this up.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 21:07:44 GMT
Re pedophilia: Ah ok your grammar was poor so I wasn't sure what you were saying. If I remember correctly I answered the question but you continued repeating the question. From the poster who wrote this: And this poster called others "Dunning-Krugeroids". You can't make this up. I presume you are not familiar with a comcept known as a 'typo' then? Ironically you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect here.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 27, 2017 21:19:46 GMT
From the poster who wrote this: And this poster called others "Dunning-Krugeroids". You can't make this up. I presume you are not familiar with a comcept known as a 'typo' then? I am familiar with what a typo is. But you apparently are not familiar with expressing yourself clearly. Misusing "there" for "their" is not a typo. It's bad grammar, or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Same with mixing singular and plural. Because of this, it is not possible to know who looked into which box, and who said what about which box.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 21:22:35 GMT
I presume you are not familiar with a comcept known as a 'typo' then? I am familiar with what a typo is. But you apparently are not familiar with expressing yourself clearly. Misusing "there" for "their" is not a typo. It's bad grammar, or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Same with mixing singular and plural. Because of this, it is not possible to know who looked into which box, and who said what about which box. Fair enough, I guess I just typed it out too fast. Although there is a difference between linguistic performance and linguistic competence. Gadreel lacks the latter but I don't.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 27, 2017 21:24:24 GMT
I am familiar with what a typo is. But you apparently are not familiar with expressing yourself clearly. Misusing "there" for "their" is not a typo. It's bad grammar, or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Same with mixing singular and plural. Because of this, it is not possible to know who looked into which box, and who said what about which box. Fair enough, I guess I just typed it out too fast. Although there is a difference between linguistic performance and linguistic competence. Gadreel lacks the latter but I don't. I find that hard to swallow from someone as incapable of presenting their views as you are.
|
|