S

Gay. :eyes: Anyway, how dare you doubt the words of our lord and saviour? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PDilu87kQCk

Told her so.

He's got you there, @"VagabondSpectre". I think your biggest problem is in not recognising the amoral as amoral, because your feelings get in the way ...

I don't think so. With respect to logic, it's designed to jettison bad arguments and limit unreasonable discussion. I use it with the intent to improv...

Nevertheless, look what has happened. Clearly it has faults which warrant going back to the drawing board.

That's irrelevant to morality. Whether it's immoral is what's relevant. You'd have to connect the two, but there's no necessary connection, and to say...

Okay, that did make me laugh. We're fucked anyway, unless we all make big changes, and make them fast. So, whether you, Akanthinos, leave the lights o...

You could add a whole load of stuff to complete that sentence. The U.S. needs a revolution.

Ah, someone who gets it. Others still have some catching up to do. It's cringey when they think that they're making a meaningful point, and when they ...

Wouldn't that be great, though? That's an ideal worth aspiring to. Maybe if I vigorously reproach people all of the time when they don't accord with m...

You can take yours off?

Of course not, I'm an owl.

First it was "mere" and "nothing". Now it is "destructive". These are clear examples of loaded language. Maybe try to be more reasonable and less emot...

:lol: :up:

I hate it when people use drugs to make a point like that, especially when they pretend they're being scientific. It's about as scientific as conducti...

Sorry, can you say that again in English?

I'm not going to do either of those things. I'd rather you just make a clear point in support of adopting your definition over mine, and a point which...

It's kind of funny, because my mum was Christened, and her parents kind of pushed Catholicism on her through her childhood, though she rejected it. So...

This is a brilliant and funny example of political correctness exposed: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j26ax_NDeek Her reaction is priceless. I hated Y...

Indeed. It's ultimately untenable to argue against reason. Anyone who does so is using reason to argue against reason. And the alternative to that wou...

I think that that can definitely be one underlying motive. It can be used to avoid controversy and arguments and to protect the feelings of people who...

Nicely done.

Don't be.

Hear, hear. Some of it is so petty, and counterproductive, and undeserving of respect. Here on this forum I live out my principles which clash with pr...

I agree with your analysis. This has become more about what he is doing wrong than the actual topic about ancient texts. That happens with certain peo...

You both still don't seem to realise that that, in itself, is beside the point. Yes, of course I'm imagining it from my human perspective. I am a huma...

Okay.

Ah, you've stopped ignoring me, at least for a moment. I agree that definitions can be wrong, in a sense. That would be a much more productive directi...

You could take the three fundamental laws of logic as an example. You either get it or you don't. The vast majority of people simply get it. They get ...

Yeah, I understand that, I just don't relate to it. Even if I was Christened as a child and whatnot, I still wouldn't call myself a Christian for thos...

No, it's not that, it's a fundamental disagreement about appropriate lines of enquiry. I'm a foundationalist, and as such, I think that some lines of ...

:up:

What you're doing isn't very clever, in my opinion. It's just like a child who keeps asking why. The standard is just the standard. If you act in acco...

If I had wanted to express surprise, then I would've used a different emoticon. But instead, I raised an eyebrow. Let's just say that it's not somethi...

67% of 58 voters say that they belong to a religion, yet only 36% of 58 voters say that they consider themselves a religious person. :brow:

Not really. You just assert a definition and point out a logical consequence. Bravo. :clap:

I've reached the conclusion that statements like the above are naive, because they think that they're saying something about nature, rather than, real...

Doxastic involuntarism. I went through some of the results, and there's an academic paper which basically says that this position is the standard epis...

I told you what's wrong with what you did: you made a bare assertion relating to a controversial position in philosophy as though it was an establishe...

No, of course it isn't determined by consensus! If he contradicted himself then he contradicted himself! It doesn't matter what he or anyone else says...

Applying reason is insufficient. Being reasonable is what matters. There's a difference. I don't need a consensus to know, for example, if someone has...

That doesn't really matter, though, does it? This isn't about me. If you're going to play that game, then I can easily retract what I said and rephras...

I get that, which is why - having rejected moral objectivism as without warrant - I pragmatically opt with moral relativism, which means that moral st...

I agree. I don't think that they necessarily accept that it has an advantage over our ordinary way of talking. I think that that is lower down their l...

That's a better way of wording it. There's a meaning, only it's lost to us. He's a slowcoach at getting to the point. I often have to try to make an i...

I agree with much of that. It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter in the sense that morality would be no less important. The problem is getting the othe...

To believe something is to be convinced of it. I originally got that from a dictionary definition, and I think that it works very well. I can't think ...

But that would still boil down to preferences, so at the most fundamental level morality would be subjective.

He has company. In a practical, meaningful sense, that's more or less what it is. That's arrogant. Maybe you're the one who needs educating. There are...

Here we go. That's a philosophical position called doxastic voluntarism. You are talking as though it is established fact, when it isn't.