TRUMP AHEAD?

[seeds]

Meanwhile Trump has offered his own version of objective morality in a rally today.
In it he praises Hannibal Lecter as the "late great man".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0OWcvaG_Y

And, of course, taking into account the deep knowledge of, and reverence for history held by the crowds that Trump attracts, after hearing Trump mention the name "Hannibal," they no doubt must have immediately thought that their stable* genius was referring to this Hannibal...

Hannibal led his Carthaginian army over the Alps and into Italy to take the war directly to the Roman Republic, bypassing Roman and allied land garrisons, and Roman naval dominance.

*Trump is a "stable" genius because, word is, he can tell you the breed of a horse just by squishing his toes in its manure. The same goes with cow pies. Oh, and he even taught a horse how to mimic his rally speeches...


_______

That horseshit is your breakfast idiot.

Wow!

Now that's the "Hogrider/Hobbes' Choice/Blueberry Poundcake/Sculptor" I'm used to dealing with.

I'd return the nasty insult, but you know what they say about wallowing in the mud with pigs, right?

Anyway, I just now realized that I have been misinterpreting your stance and that your earlier comment about Trump mentioning Hannibal Lecter at a rally was actually you somehow praising Trump, and that you're a Trump supporter.

I knew there was something fishy in my thinking you were an ally in the crusade against allowing the most brazen and egregious of pathological liars (they're all liars) to have access to nuclear launch codes (you know, as in the enemy of my enemy is a friend).

The mistake won't happen again.

In the meantime, you need to stop sending mixed signals.

Like I said earlier, Bizarro World is weird.
_______

[Age]

You have said absolutely nothing to change my view, and you have said absolutely nothing to support your own.

The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality.

Here is another one who appears to not know the difference between a sound and valid argument, and, an argument.

Not one of your so-called 'arguments' were sound and valid. Therefore, there was not one that is even worthy of being repeated anywhere, besides to point out how to not argue, let alone there being anything in 'your arguments' that would be conducive for anyone to follow, agree with, or accept your views and beliefs here.

'Objective morality' is an existing thing that cannot be refuted. However, that you have shown that you are completely and utterly incapable of listing what is actually 'objectively moral' shows and proves just how little you really know here.

Which is why you, "immanuel can", are just as much a "subjectivist" as everyone else is, here.

But I understand the desperate rush to return to arguments about objective morality. Subjectivism never becomes the option on its own merits; it has none, and can't rationalize even one single moral precept for even one person. So proponents of Subjectivism have to a) focus on Objectivism, and b) pretend that if Objectivism is persistently denied, then Subjectivism becomes the default option.

But since Subjectivism is utterly incoherent, what really ensues is Nihilism.

This is your subjective view only, here.

The Subjectivist, however, is terrified of Nihilism, and wants to be able to tell himself he's in a morally-safe world, or that he's still "a good person," even though he has no concept of "good" he can support. So he slides back into irrational Subjectivism...at the cost of becoming an irrational person.

you have proved, over and over again, that you have no actual real concept of what is actually morally Good, or Right, and what is actually Bad, or Wrong, in Life

It won't work. And if Objectivism is right, it's certain to put him on the wrong side of morality, and the wrong side of truth.

Here we have another absolutely False and Wrong claim.

you are living proof and have proved True that what can believe in 'objectivity' but still have Wrong views, and also do Wrong things, compared to an admitted "subjectivist'.

[seeds]

You have said absolutely nothing to change my view, and you have said absolutely nothing to support your own.

The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality.

You haven't got an argument. All you've got is, there is a God, and he decides what's moral and what's not. That's it; that's all you've got. That's not an argument, it's just a silly assertion.

And the irony is that if God does indeed exist, then there would still be no such thing as "objective morality."

And that's because whatever moral principles God has allegedly baked into the fabric of this universe, they are based on God's own "subjective" determination of what morality means to God.

Now of course it can be argued that because we are "living under God's roof," so to speak, God's moral principles...

(and I assume that IC is probably referring to the Bible's Ten Commandments, for example)

...may indeed be "objective" to humans, because if we don't treat them as such, then the owner of the roof might become very cross with us.

However, that does not change the fact that all moral principles (again, even those established by God) are a product of a subjectively-based decision-making process that reflects some Being's personal (subjective) "opinion" (God's "opinion," in this case) of what morality entails.
_______

[Harbal]

The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality.

You haven't got an argument. All you've got is, there is a God, and he decides what's moral and what's not. That's it; that's all you've got. That's not an argument, it's just a silly assertion.

And the irony is that if God does indeed exist, then there would still be no such thing as "objective morality."

And that's because whatever moral principles God has allegedly baked into the fabric of this universe, they are based on God's own "subjective" determination of what morality means to God.

Now of course it can be argued that because we are "living under God's roof," so to speak, God's moral principles...

(and I assume that IC is probably referring to the Bible's Ten Commandments, for example)

...may indeed be "objective" to humans, because if we don't treat them as such, then the owner of the roof might become very cross with us.

However, that does not change the fact that all moral principles (again, even those established by God) are a product of a subjectively-based decision-making process that reflects some Being's personal (subjective) "opinion" (God's "opinion," in this case) of what morality entails.
_______

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[mickthinks]

Humans are fucked anyway …

Well, this might be true, but if it is, that isn’t for any of the reasons you believe (or pretend to believe).

… so we might as well have a laugh on the way out- …
Yawn—affected sardonic detachment is affected.

When things have got so good … blah-di-bigotted-blah
That’s the noise made be someone who hates America and it’s freedoms.

[Age]

The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality.

You haven't got an argument. All you've got is, there is a God, and he decides what's moral and what's not. That's it; that's all you've got. That's not an argument, it's just a silly assertion.

And the irony is that if God does indeed exist, then there would still be no such thing as "objective morality."

And that's because whatever moral principles God has allegedly baked into the fabric of this universe, they are based on God's own "subjective" determination of what morality means to God.

Why do you presume that God is separated from any or every thing?

Now of course it can be argued that because we are "living under God's roof," so to speak, God's moral principles...

(and I assume that IC is probably referring to the Bible's Ten Commandments, for example)

We will never know because "immanuel can" is to afraid to list any of what are supposed to be 'objective morals', in Life.

...may indeed be "objective" to humans, because if we don't treat them as such, then the owner of the roof might become very cross with us.

Any made up 'rule/moral', by any one, which is not agreed with and accepted, by every one, is not an 'objective rule/moral, anyway. No matter what anyone thinks or feels, or gets 'cross' about.

However, that does not change the fact that all moral principles (again, even those established by God) are a product of a subjectively-based decision-making process that reflects some Being's personal (subjective) "opinion" (God's "opinion," in this case) of what morality entails.
_______

But, when who and what God is exactly, has also become by you, "others", then you will see and understand where you are, exactly, Wrong here.

[Immanuel Can]

You have said absolutely nothing to change my view, and you have said absolutely nothing to support your own.

The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality.

You haven't got an argument.

You haven't read much of what I've said. This isn't my first rodeo here, you know.

[Harbal]

The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality.

You haven't got an argument.

You haven't read much of what I've said. This isn't my first rodeo here, you know.

Okay, I haven't seen an argument, and I doubt that you could come up with an even slightly persuasive one. Morality simply cannot be a matter of objective truth, because morality just isn't that sort of thing. To talk about an objective moral truth makes as much sense as to talk of an objective aesthetic truth.

[Immanuel Can]

You haven't got an argument.

You haven't read much of what I've said. This isn't my first rodeo here, you know.

Okay, I haven't seen an argument, and I doubt that you could come up with an even slightly persuasive one.

Well, as soon as we dispatch with Subjectivism, maybe we'll talk about that. But let's see Subjectivism stand on its own feet, first -- if it's a credible view, it really should be able to do that.

[Harbal]

You haven't read much of what I've said. This isn't my first rodeo here, you know.

Okay, I haven't seen an argument, and I doubt that you could come up with an even slightly persuasive one.

Well, as soon as we dispatch with Subjectivism, maybe we'll talk about that. But let's see Subjectivism stand on its own feet, first -- if it's a credible view, it really should be able to do that.

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience. If you want to argue that there is also, in addition, a form of morality based on objective moral truth, then go ahead, but I don't think it can be done convincingly. Please yourself; I'll listen to your argument if you have one, or draw my own conclusions if you decide not to attempt one.

[accelafine]

Humans are fucked anyway …

Well, this might be true, but if it is, that isn’t for any of the reasons you believe (or pretend to believe).

… so we might as well have a laugh on the way out- …
Yawn—affected sardonic detachment is affected.

When things have got so good … blah-di-bigotted-blah
That’s the noise made be someone who hates America and it’s freedoms.

The whole world hates America and it's certainly not for its 'freedoms' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

[accelafine]

Wow!

Now that's the "Hogrider/Hobbes' Choice/Blueberry Poundcake/Sculptor" I'm used to dealing with.

Hmm, didn't know about any of those apart from Hobbes' choice, so that makes about 7 when added to the ones that I'm aware of--and it's probably only the tip of the iceberg. What a hypocrite. Not to mention the fact that he's a moderator who childishly and obsessively signs those he hates out of their account like the nasty little petty garden gnome that he is.
Wokists are always the most horrible people. It's almost as if they are trying to compensate or cover up for something

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, I haven't seen an argument, and I doubt that you could come up with an even slightly persuasive one.

Well, as soon as we dispatch with Subjectivism, maybe we'll talk about that. But let's see Subjectivism stand on its own feet, first -- if it's a credible view, it really should be able to do that.

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience.

What "personal experience" convinces you that you've encountered what morality is, and how have you established that it was "subjective"?

And what do you do with the fact that a "subjective" view of morality makes the whole idea of morality itself ridiculous, because it makes EVERYTHING a person can "experience" equally "moral," allegedly?

[Harbal]

Well, as soon as we dispatch with Subjectivism, maybe we'll talk about that. But let's see Subjectivism stand on its own feet, first -- if it's a credible view, it really should be able to do that.

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience.

What "personal experience" convinces you that you've encountered what morality is, and how have you established that it was "subjective"?

And what do you do with the fact that a "subjective" view of morality makes the whole idea of morality itself ridiculous, because it makes EVERYTHING a person can "experience" equally "moral," allegedly?

If you want to argue that there is also, in addition, a form of morality based on objective moral truth, then go ahead, but I don't think it can be done convincingly. Please yourself; I'll listen to your argument if you have one, or draw my own conclusions if you decide not to attempt one.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience.

What "personal experience" convinces you that you've encountered what morality is, and how have you established that it was "subjective"?

And what do you do with the fact that a "subjective" view of morality makes the whole idea of morality itself ridiculous, because it makes EVERYTHING a person can "experience" equally "moral," allegedly?

If you want to argue that there is also, in addition, a form of morality based on objective moral truth, then go ahead, but I don't think it can be done convincingly. Please yourself; I'll listen to your argument if you have one, or draw my own conclusions if you decide not to attempt one.

I'm not worried about arguing that. I don't have to, for present purposes, because even if I granted you that there were no such thing as objective morality, that would not imply there WAS such a thing as a subjective morality. It would imply, instead, that there was no such thing as morality at all.

That's the important insight: that whatever you decide, Subjectivism is not going to save the day. It's just not credible on its own terms...regardless of one's attitude to objective morality.