landlords are evil thread

[promethean75]

Indeed it's one of THE most ridiculous money rackets in the capitalist system.

It takes a good crew about two weeks to build a house turn key.... and yet it takes a home owner THIRTY years to buy one.

If that doesn't bite u in the ass, u are a bonafide retard...

.... or a capitalist.

[LuckyR]

Actually you missed the whole point that if say we have 100 people and 50 of them are murderer-torturers and 50 only torture their victims but then let them go, that doesn't mean the latter 50 are "good" or "good enough". Or if you think they are then we disagree.

Ah, but you said "of humans", not a subset of humans (thus your 100 people example is moot). If 80% of ALL PEOPLE do criminal acts, then by definition, doing criminal acts is normal, so those who do heinous criminal acts are evil and those who don't do criminal acts are good.

If you don't believe me take statistics.

I didn't say 80%+ do criminal acts, I said 80%+ are evil. Yes being evil is normal and being good is a pathology, a mental disorder.

But your version of moral relativism is morally broken imo. I mean it's independent of morality. So what I wrote in the above example stands.

Not so much. The behavior of 80% of humans may violate YOUR moral code, but in YOUR EXAMPLE (as opposed to Real Life) that 80% would be living within THEIR moral code and are thus, from their perspective behaving morally. Regardless, in both your personal perspective as well as their's they would be behaving ethically, that is not violating the community ethical standard.

(True, you didn't define "evil" so for the sake of communication I used criminal acts as a proxy, though once you define your terms, feel free to substitute whatever that might be).

[Atla]

Ah, but you said "of humans", not a subset of humans (thus your 100 people example is moot). If 80% of ALL PEOPLE do criminal acts, then by definition, doing criminal acts is normal, so those who do heinous criminal acts are evil and those who don't do criminal acts are good.

If you don't believe me take statistics.

I didn't say 80%+ do criminal acts, I said 80%+ are evil. Yes being evil is normal and being good is a pathology, a mental disorder.

But your version of moral relativism is morally broken imo. I mean it's independent of morality. So what I wrote in the above example stands.

Not so much. The behavior of 80% of humans may violate YOUR moral code, but in YOUR EXAMPLE (as opposed to Real Life) that 80% would be living within THEIR moral code and are thus, from their perspective behaving morally. Regardless, in both your personal perspective as well as their's they would be behaving ethically, that is not violating the community ethical standard.

(True, you didn't define "evil" so for the sake of communication I used criminal acts as a proxy, though once you define your terms, feel free to substitute whatever that might be).

Yes I wrote it from my current moral perspective obviously, the rest of what you wrote neither fully follows just more or less, nor is relevant. Even the maths don't add up. Whatever

[Age]

I didn't say 80%+ do criminal acts, I said 80%+ are evil. Yes being evil is normal and being good is a pathology, a mental disorder.

But your version of moral relativism is morally broken imo. I mean it's independent of morality. So what I wrote in the above example stands.

Not so much. The behavior of 80% of humans may violate YOUR moral code, but in YOUR EXAMPLE (as opposed to Real Life) that 80% would be living within THEIR moral code and are thus, from their perspective behaving morally. Regardless, in both your personal perspective as well as their's they would be behaving ethically, that is not violating the community ethical standard.

(True, you didn't define "evil" so for the sake of communication I used criminal acts as a proxy, though once you define your terms, feel free to substitute whatever that might be).

Yes I wrote it from my current moral perspective obviously, the rest of what you wrote neither fully follows just more or less, nor is relevant. Even the maths don't add up.

But 'your' 'current' 'moral perspective' is NOT relevant NEITHER, OBVIOUSLY.

If 'the moral perspective' 'you' have 'today' IS GOING TO or COULD CHANGE 'tomorrow', then 'its' relevance' is just NEGLIGENT, and thus was NOT even worth mentioning here.

Whatever

'Whatever' MEANS that i am NOT going to 'define' 'my terms', when 'i have been CLEARLY ASKED TO'.

AND the VERY REASON WHY 'this one' WILL NOT 'define' 'its terms' is BECAUSE 'it' could NOT do so without CONTRADICTING 'itself' NOR without being HYPOCRITICAL, and/or 'it' STILL has NOT YET even considered what the ACTUAL 'definitions' ARE or COULD BE anyway.

[Atla]

Not so much. The behavior of 80% of humans may violate YOUR moral code, but in YOUR EXAMPLE (as opposed to Real Life) that 80% would be living within THEIR moral code and are thus, from their perspective behaving morally. Regardless, in both your personal perspective as well as their's they would be behaving ethically, that is not violating the community ethical standard.

(True, you didn't define "evil" so for the sake of communication I used criminal acts as a proxy, though once you define your terms, feel free to substitute whatever that might be).

Yes I wrote it from my current moral perspective obviously, the rest of what you wrote neither fully follows just more or less, nor is relevant. Even the maths don't add up.

But 'your' 'current' 'moral perspective' is NOT relevant NEITHER, OBVIOUSLY.

If 'the moral perspective' 'you' have 'today' IS GOING TO or COULD CHANGE 'tomorrow', then 'its' relevance' is just NEGLIGENT, and thus was NOT even worth mentioning here.

Whatever

'Whatever' MEANS that i am NOT going to 'define' 'my terms', when 'i have been CLEARLY ASKED TO'.

AND the VERY REASON WHY 'this one' WILL NOT 'define' 'its terms' is BECAUSE 'it' could NOT do so without CONTRADICTING 'itself' NOR without being HYPOCRITICAL, and/or 'it' STILL has NOT YET even considered what the ACTUAL 'definitions' ARE or COULD BE anyway.

You're the only one hypocritical here by claiming to know absolute truths which just don't exist

[Age]

"All that and so much more. A stranger who knows and cares nothing about your needs gets to decide whether you're allowed to meet them based on their own personal wants."

Not sure what that means, but i am sure that's not part of the problem. Or it's a trivial problem if it is one.

"The skills, nvm luck, necessary to acquire money has literally nothing to do with the skills required to use wealth ethically."

U can't tell somebody how they should use their money.

"Keeping anything for yourself while someone else needs it and you don't is inherently immoral."

No, again.

The problem here, the only problem here, is this. Capitalists turn property into an investment, monopolize the housing market and artificially inflate the costs of it.

This has nothing to do with 'ethical' this or 'moral' that.

Second. If u are unable or unwilling to play this game with the capitalist parasites, u can very easily be criminalized as a result. To say again, u are forced to pay rent or buy a house becuz the government owns all other property (that isn't private), and it's illegal to be on it.

But 'the government' does NOT own all of the 'other property'?

What gave 'you' the idea that 'they' did "promethean75"?

[LuckyR]

I didn't say 80%+ do criminal acts, I said 80%+ are evil. Yes being evil is normal and being good is a pathology, a mental disorder.

But your version of moral relativism is morally broken imo. I mean it's independent of morality. So what I wrote in the above example stands.

Not so much. The behavior of 80% of humans may violate YOUR moral code, but in YOUR EXAMPLE (as opposed to Real Life) that 80% would be living within THEIR moral code and are thus, from their perspective behaving morally. Regardless, in both your personal perspective as well as their's they would be behaving ethically, that is not violating the community ethical standard.

(True, you didn't define "evil" so for the sake of communication I used criminal acts as a proxy, though once you define your terms, feel free to substitute whatever that might be).

Yes I wrote it from my current moral perspective obviously, the rest of what you wrote neither fully follows just more or less, nor is relevant. Even the maths don't add up. Whatever

Exactly. Point one: moral codes differ based on one's perspective (essentially the definition of subjective). And point two: no one's perspective is considered "relevant" by a different obsever. Well done! Kudos to you.

[Atla]

Not so much. The behavior of 80% of humans may violate YOUR moral code, but in YOUR EXAMPLE (as opposed to Real Life) that 80% would be living within THEIR moral code and are thus, from their perspective behaving morally. Regardless, in both your personal perspective as well as their's they would be behaving ethically, that is not violating the community ethical standard.

(True, you didn't define "evil" so for the sake of communication I used criminal acts as a proxy, though once you define your terms, feel free to substitute whatever that might be).

Yes I wrote it from my current moral perspective obviously, the rest of what you wrote neither fully follows just more or less, nor is relevant. Even the maths don't add up. Whatever

Exactly. Point one: moral codes differ based on one's perspective (essentially the definition of subjective). And point two: no one's perspective is considered "relevant" by a different obsever. Well done! Kudos to you.

Obviously, so? And even here you messed up point two, as it doesn't always hold. Shoo

[Age]

Yes I wrote it from my current moral perspective obviously, the rest of what you wrote neither fully follows just more or less, nor is relevant. Even the maths don't add up.

But 'your' 'current' 'moral perspective' is NOT relevant NEITHER, OBVIOUSLY.

If 'the moral perspective' 'you' have 'today' IS GOING TO or COULD CHANGE 'tomorrow', then 'its' relevance' is just NEGLIGENT, and thus was NOT even worth mentioning here.

Whatever

'Whatever' MEANS that i am NOT going to 'define' 'my terms', when 'i have been CLEARLY ASKED TO'.

AND the VERY REASON WHY 'this one' WILL NOT 'define' 'its terms' is BECAUSE 'it' could NOT do so without CONTRADICTING 'itself' NOR without being HYPOCRITICAL, and/or 'it' STILL has NOT YET even considered what the ACTUAL 'definitions' ARE or COULD BE anyway.

You're the only one hypocritical here by claiming to know absolute truths which just don't exist

But KNOWING ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth/s is VERY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY indeed. Although 'you' OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE otherwise IS the ABSOLUTE truth "atla".

Now, for those who are ACTUALLY OPEN, and thus INTELLIGENT, SEEING and KNOWING who is BEING ACTUALLY HYPOCRITICAL here IS VERY OBVIOUS, and CRYSTAL CLEAR. For those who STILL can NOT YET SEE this Fact, by claiming to KNOW that there ARE IRREFUTABLE Facts or Truth is NOT being HYPOCRITICAL AT ALL, if such 'things' EXIST.

However, CLAIMING and INSISTING that there are NO ABSOLUTE truths IS DONE on the PROVISION that 'this CLAIM' is AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Which, to DO SO, would BE BEING HYPOCRITICAL, in the EXTREME.

[Atla]

But 'your' 'current' 'moral perspective' is NOT relevant NEITHER, OBVIOUSLY.

If 'the moral perspective' 'you' have 'today' IS GOING TO or COULD CHANGE 'tomorrow', then 'its' relevance' is just NEGLIGENT, and thus was NOT even worth mentioning here.



'Whatever' MEANS that i am NOT going to 'define' 'my terms', when 'i have been CLEARLY ASKED TO'.

AND the VERY REASON WHY 'this one' WILL NOT 'define' 'its terms' is BECAUSE 'it' could NOT do so without CONTRADICTING 'itself' NOR without being HYPOCRITICAL, and/or 'it' STILL has NOT YET even considered what the ACTUAL 'definitions' ARE or COULD BE anyway.

You're the only one hypocritical here by claiming to know absolute truths which just don't exist

But KNOWING ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth/s is VERY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY indeed. Although 'you' OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE otherwise IS the ABSOLUTE truth "atla".

Now, for those who are ACTUALLY OPEN, and thus INTELLIGENT, SEEING and KNOWING who is BEING ACTUALLY HYPOCRITICAL here IS VERY OBVIOUS, and CRYSTAL CLEAR. For those who STILL can NOT YET SEE this Fact, by claiming to KNOW that there ARE IRREFUTABLE Facts or Truth is NOT being HYPOCRITICAL AT ALL, if such 'things' EXIST.

However, CLAIMING and INSISTING that there are NO ABSOLUTE truths IS DONE on the PROVISION that 'this CLAIM' is AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Which, to DO SO, would BE BEING HYPOCRITICAL, in the EXTREME.

I don't need to hear the same hypocritical lies for the hundredth time, f off

[Age]

You're the only one hypocritical here by claiming to know absolute truths which just don't exist

But KNOWING ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth/s is VERY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY indeed. Although 'you' OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE otherwise IS the ABSOLUTE truth "atla".

Now, for those who are ACTUALLY OPEN, and thus INTELLIGENT, SEEING and KNOWING who is BEING ACTUALLY HYPOCRITICAL here IS VERY OBVIOUS, and CRYSTAL CLEAR. For those who STILL can NOT YET SEE this Fact, by claiming to KNOW that there ARE IRREFUTABLE Facts or Truth is NOT being HYPOCRITICAL AT ALL, if such 'things' EXIST.

However, CLAIMING and INSISTING that there are NO ABSOLUTE truths IS DONE on the PROVISION that 'this CLAIM' is AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Which, to DO SO, would BE BEING HYPOCRITICAL, in the EXTREME.

I don't need to hear the same hypocritical lies for the hundredth time, f off

Now what can be SEEN here, CRYSTAL CLEARLY by the way, is EXACTLY HOW HYPOCRITICAL "atla" HAS BEEN.

And, until MY WORDS here ARE Corrected, 'they' WILL STAND NOT YET REFUTED.

SAYING 'things' like; 'I don't want to here you', I don't want to hear the same lies', AND 'fuck off' is NEVER EVER, EVER going to HELP 'you' here "atla".

'you' can NOT REFUTE what I just SHOWED and PROVED ABSOLUTELY True here, and that 'this' just ABSOLUTELY INFURIATES 'you' is ALSO NOT HELPING 'you' in ANY way whatsoever.

I FIND, and found, however, by just BEING Truly OPEN and Honest HELPS TREMENDOUSLY. MAYBE one day 'you' MIGHT like to TRY 'it' SOMETIME.

We WILL WAIT, TO SEE.

[Atla]

But KNOWING ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth/s is VERY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY indeed. Although 'you' OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE otherwise IS the ABSOLUTE truth "atla".

Now, for those who are ACTUALLY OPEN, and thus INTELLIGENT, SEEING and KNOWING who is BEING ACTUALLY HYPOCRITICAL here IS VERY OBVIOUS, and CRYSTAL CLEAR. For those who STILL can NOT YET SEE this Fact, by claiming to KNOW that there ARE IRREFUTABLE Facts or Truth is NOT being HYPOCRITICAL AT ALL, if such 'things' EXIST.

However, CLAIMING and INSISTING that there are NO ABSOLUTE truths IS DONE on the PROVISION that 'this CLAIM' is AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Which, to DO SO, would BE BEING HYPOCRITICAL, in the EXTREME.

I don't need to hear the same hypocritical lies for the hundredth time, f off

Now what can be SEEN here, CRYSTAL CLEARLY by the way, is EXACTLY HOW HYPOCRITICAL "atla" HAS BEEN.

And, until MY WORDS here ARE Corrected, 'they' WILL STAND NOT YET REFUTED.

SAYING 'things' like; 'I don't want to here you', I don't want to hear the same lies', AND 'fuck off' is NEVER EVER, EVER going to HELP 'you' here "atla".

'you' can NOT REFUTE what I just SHOWED and PROVED ABSOLUTELY True here, and that 'this' just ABSOLUTELY INFURIATES 'you' is ALSO NOT HELPING 'you' in ANY way whatsoever.

I FIND, and found, however, by just BEING Truly OPEN and Honest HELPS TREMENDOUSLY. MAYBE one day 'you' MIGHT like to TRY 'it' SOMETIME.

We WILL WAIT, TO SEE.

I already corrected your basic failure to resolve an infinite regress years ago, and then several times ever since. Went miles over your head and still does. You have no business parading around on a philosophy forum.

[Age]

I don't need to hear the same hypocritical lies for the hundredth time, f off

Now what can be SEEN here, CRYSTAL CLEARLY by the way, is EXACTLY HOW HYPOCRITICAL "atla" HAS BEEN.

And, until MY WORDS here ARE Corrected, 'they' WILL STAND NOT YET REFUTED.

SAYING 'things' like; 'I don't want to here you', I don't want to hear the same lies', AND 'fuck off' is NEVER EVER, EVER going to HELP 'you' here "atla".

'you' can NOT REFUTE what I just SHOWED and PROVED ABSOLUTELY True here, and that 'this' just ABSOLUTELY INFURIATES 'you' is ALSO NOT HELPING 'you' in ANY way whatsoever.

I FIND, and found, however, by just BEING Truly OPEN and Honest HELPS TREMENDOUSLY. MAYBE one day 'you' MIGHT like to TRY 'it' SOMETIME.

We WILL WAIT, TO SEE.

I already corrected your basic failure to resolve an infinite regress years ago,

Talk ABOUT an ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION, and thus DECEPTION, in one of is BIGGEST FORMS. However, let us AGREE that what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here MIGHT BE TRUE.

WHEN did 'this' TAKE PLACE?
WHAT did 'you' ACTUALLY SAY?
WHAT did 'I' ACTUALLY SAY, which 'you' REPLIED TO, and ALLEGEDLY and SUPPOSEDLY 'corrected'? AND,
WHAT has ANY OF 'this' even got to do with the ABSOLUTE Fact that I JUST SHOWED, POINTED OUT, and PROVED here HOW 'you' ARE BEING HYPOCRITICAL "atla"?

and then several times ever since.

AGAIN, what has 'this' even go to do WITH what I have SAID and WROTE here in regards to how 'you' are BEING HYPOCRITICAL by CLAIMING that there are NOT absolute truths WHILE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME CLAIMING that 'that CLAIM' IS an ABSOLUTE TRUTH itself?

Went miles over your head and still does.

YES, considering the Fact that 'you' have NEVER DONE what 'you' are now CLAIMING 'you' HAVE, what 'it' is, EXACTLY, which 'you' BELIEVE and CLAIM 'you' have DONE and ACHIEVED is CERTAINLY NOT being UNDERSTOOD BY 'me' AT ALL, in that; I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to ANY so-called 'basic failure to resolve ANY so-called 'infinite regress'.

And, what is STILL being MISSED, ABSOLUTELY, by 'you' "atla" is the Fact of just how CONNIVING and DECEIVING 'you' ARE 'TRYING TO' be here, is NOT going so-called 'over my head' AT ALL. As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, now.

You have no business parading around on a philosophy forum.

SAYS 'the one' is has just PROVEN ABSOLUTELY True just how Truly HYPOCRITICAL 'it' IS, and CAN BE.

[Atla]

AGAIN, what has 'this' even go to do WITH what I have SAID and WROTE here in regards to how 'you' are BEING HYPOCRITICAL by CLAIMING that there are NOT absolute truths WHILE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME CLAIMING that 'that CLAIM' IS an ABSOLUTE TRUTH itself?

See you just expressed it in your own words that it goes miles over your head, again. For the 500th time. I get it. And stop lying about my claims.

[Age]

AGAIN, what has 'this' even go to do WITH what I have SAID and WROTE here in regards to how 'you' are BEING HYPOCRITICAL by CLAIMING that there are NOT absolute truths WHILE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME CLAIMING that 'that CLAIM' IS an ABSOLUTE TRUTH itself?

See you just expressed it in your own words that it goes miles over your head, again.

'you' seem to be MISSING the POINT AGAIN here "atla".

I do NOT YET KNOW what the second 'it' word here is even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, AGAIN 'now'.

PREVIOUSLY 'you' were talking ABOUT some so-called ' basic failure to resolve an infinite regress', 'years ago'.

Is 'this' what the second 'it' is REFERRING TO and TALKING ABOUT, EXACTLY?

For the 500th time.

WHY do 'you' CONTINUALLY CALL 'me' THE LIAR WHEN 'you' WRITE 'things' like this here?

I get it.

'you' get 'what', SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY?

And stop lying about my claims.

SO, ARE 'you' 'now' SAYING and CLAIMING that 'your CLAIM' that 'there are NO absolute truths' is NOT even 'absolutely truth' anyway AT ALL?