Topic: The difference in justification of moral claims and mathematical claims?
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #41,653
Imagine a teacher and a student. The student is a total idiot and remains sure that 1+1=3. How would the teacher justify the true mathematical answer which is that 1+1=2? Would it not be by simply giving the student two objects and tell him to count both of them? Can we not then imagine a student claiming that people should be fair and the teacher responds by showing the student all the people in the world which the student thinks are unfair. In both cases, the teacher reveals to the student a contradiction which exists in the world.
If one says people should be fair, he would not mean that all people are fair. Then likewise, can't one say 1+1 should equal 3 but not that it does. So in short, isn't the claim that people should be fair as bold as saying 1+1 should equal 3? At least as bold in the sense that one could use the exact same logic on both.
If one says people should be fair, he would not mean that all people are fair. Then likewise, can't one say 1+1 should equal 3 but not that it does. So in short, isn't the claim that people should be fair as bold as saying 1+1 should equal 3? At least as bold in the sense that one could use the exact same logic on both.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #553,530
@OP
STOP ABUSING MARIJUANA.
STOP ABUSING MARIJUANA.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,532
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,533
No.
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 8 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,534
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,535
@553,533 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yes. No wait i mean why?
@previous (B)
Zero. I have zero marijuanas in my blood now.
Yes. No wait i mean why?
@previous (B)
Zero. I have zero marijuanas in my blood now.
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,537
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,539
@previous (B)
I guess i should find my self a group of gangsters to talk to then. More on the same level.
I guess i should find my self a group of gangsters to talk to then. More on the same level.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,544
@553,535 (A)
Mathematical claims are basically never justified on empirical grounds. It is usually done as some logical proof or proofs that remain true no matter what exists or doesnt exist in the physical world.
Please look up the different definitions of the word "should". " should" in a moral sense means something different than should in a predictive sense, e.g. "the pen should fall to the ground after I drop it" vs. "You should give your friend a pen if you have one to spare and they would fail the important test if you didn't."
Mathematical claims are basically never justified on empirical grounds. It is usually done as some logical proof or proofs that remain true no matter what exists or doesnt exist in the physical world.
Please look up the different definitions of the word "should". " should" in a moral sense means something different than should in a predictive sense, e.g. "the pen should fall to the ground after I drop it" vs. "You should give your friend a pen if you have one to spare and they would fail the important test if you didn't."
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,549
@553,539 (A)
You are clearly a dope fiend. Seek help immediately.
To answer your original question, the teacher should refer the student to Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's proof of 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica.
You are clearly a dope fiend. Seek help immediately.
To answer your original question, the teacher should refer the student to Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's proof of 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,552
@553,544 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Right okay.... But one can justify it with empirical proof.
> Please look up the different definitions of the word "should". " should"
i made it very clear that the analogy involved comparing the exact same should. The student is not saying 1+1=3 in the predictive sense but like the moral sense. So how would you say that his (the student) ideas of how should 1+1=3 is wrong?
@previous (B)
But the maybe the teacher wants the student to compare the two.
Right okay.... But one can justify it with empirical proof.
> Please look up the different definitions of the word "should". " should"
i made it very clear that the analogy involved comparing the exact same should. The student is not saying 1+1=3 in the predictive sense but like the moral sense. So how would you say that his (the student) ideas of how should 1+1=3 is wrong?
@previous (B)
But the maybe the teacher wants the student to compare the two.
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,554
@previous (A)
Then he probably isn't a teacher. Sounds more like he's some kind of vagrant who sneaked into the school after mainlining a couple of bong hits of dope and is now standing in the janitor's closet and rambling incoherently at a mop.
Then he probably isn't a teacher. Sounds more like he's some kind of vagrant who sneaked into the school after mainlining a couple of bong hits of dope and is now standing in the janitor's closet and rambling incoherently at a mop.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,556
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,560
@553,554 (B)
At least he is a teacher who tries to teach instead of just telling people to read books!
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't think there is something moral about that. But who knows, maybe the student claims 1+1 SHOULD equal 3 because he thinks that the number 2 is disgusting and disturbing to look at. Just like how
the student claims people SHOULD not murder other people because murder is disgusting to experience, especially on the receiving end.
At least he is a teacher who tries to teach instead of just telling people to read books!
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't think there is something moral about that. But who knows, maybe the student claims 1+1 SHOULD equal 3 because he thinks that the number 2 is disgusting and disturbing to look at. Just like how
the student claims people SHOULD not murder other people because murder is disgusting to experience, especially on the receiving end.
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,563
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,568
@previous (B)
I prefer the teacher who taught me to read instead of the teacher who gave a book on how to read.
I prefer the teacher who taught me to read instead of the teacher who gave a book on how to read.
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,572
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 second later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,573
why dont you honk my hog bozo
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,576
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #553,582
@553,560 (A)
OK well then if he's arguing 1+1=3 because the number 2 is ugly, that isn't the same as saying 2 is immoral. You are confusing a lot of things and it is tying your words and reasoning into an unrecognizable knot. Lay off the drugs and study philosophy!
OK well then if he's arguing 1+1=3 because the number 2 is ugly, that isn't the same as saying 2 is immoral. You are confusing a lot of things and it is tying your words and reasoning into an unrecognizable knot. Lay off the drugs and study philosophy!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,593
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> that isn't the same as saying 2 is immoral
Are you certain? What makes something moral or immoral other then how we feel about things?
> that isn't the same as saying 2 is immoral
Are you certain? What makes something moral or immoral other then how we feel about things?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,595
@previous (A)
Um...a lot of things. Consequences of the action, intent behind the action, whether the action is consistent with moral principles, whether the action is consistent with virtue etc. all are relevant in different kinds of analyses. The moral claims = emotional claims school of thought is called emotivism and has been dead for over sixty years.
Um...a lot of things. Consequences of the action, intent behind the action, whether the action is consistent with moral principles, whether the action is consistent with virtue etc. all are relevant in different kinds of analyses. The moral claims = emotional claims school of thought is called emotivism and has been dead for over sixty years.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,604
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
So they are something factual? Or are they opinions? I am curious what you think.
So they are something factual? Or are they opinions? I am curious what you think.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,607
@previous (A)
They're...both. They are factual statements about events that happen in the world. They are believed by people for any number of reasons.
They're...both. They are factual statements about events that happen in the world. They are believed by people for any number of reasons.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,608
@553,604 (A)
Because if they are opinions... then its pretty much up to individuals what is or is not moral/immoral.
Because if they are opinions... then its pretty much up to individuals what is or is not moral/immoral.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,609
@553,607 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> for any number of reasons
Such as not liking something. The student does not like the number 2.
> for any number of reasons
Such as not liking something. The student does not like the number 2.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,610
@previous (A)
Right...there are definitely incorrect reasons for thinking things are moral or immoral, just like there are incorrect reasons for thinking anything. I was just explaining why they are factual, and why they are also opinions.
Right...there are definitely incorrect reasons for thinking things are moral or immoral, just like there are incorrect reasons for thinking anything. I was just explaining why they are factual, and why they are also opinions.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,612
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yet you have not explained why it is incorrect to think the number 2 is immoral. You basically just say because of reasons
Yet you have not explained why it is incorrect to think the number 2 is immoral. You basically just say because of reasons
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,613
@previous (A)
If you're asking me why emotivism is wrong, you should go poke around the SEP, Google Scholar, hell most undergrad textbooks that contain a section on morality will cover it. Sorry if that's dismissive but I'm going to bed and I do not have the energy to go read up a bunch on why A.J. Ayer was wrong again.
If you're asking me why emotivism is wrong, you should go poke around the SEP, Google Scholar, hell most undergrad textbooks that contain a section on morality will cover it. Sorry if that's dismissive but I'm going to bed and I do not have the energy to go read up a bunch on why A.J. Ayer was wrong again.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,614
"Proof" that 1 + 1 = 1
a = 1
b = 1
a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1
a = 1
b = 1
a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,615
@553,613 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If you can't answer it, then its okay buddy.I am tired so if you come back to this thread just read about Moral relativism.
If you can't answer it, then its okay buddy.I am tired so if you come back to this thread just read about Moral relativism.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #553,616
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,648
You're asking if morality has as strong a basis in logic as math does. It's a question that has troubled philosophers since the beginning of time. You're not going to make any more headway in this thread than philosophers of morals and ethics have in the past 1000 years. I suggest you brush up on your reading before attempting to do so.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 50 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,659
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> You're asking if morality has as strong a basis in logic as math does
No i am not. I was asking if my analogy is correct.
> It's a question that has troubled philosophers since the beginning of time
From the beginning of time? Also it has not troubled all philosophers at all, some reach conclusions.
> You're not going to make any more headway in this thread than philosophers of morals and ethics have in the past 1000 years
So i guess nobody should ask questions ever.
> You're asking if morality has as strong a basis in logic as math does
No i am not. I was asking if my analogy is correct.
> It's a question that has troubled philosophers since the beginning of time
From the beginning of time? Also it has not troubled all philosophers at all, some reach conclusions.
> You're not going to make any more headway in this thread than philosophers of morals and ethics have in the past 1000 years
So i guess nobody should ask questions ever.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,661
@previous (A)
> No i am not. I was asking if my analogy is correct.
OK. Your analogy is incorrect. And that is what you were asking whether you realize it or not.
> From the beginning of time? Also it has not troubled all philosophers at all, some reach conclusions.
Your aspergers makes you not handle hyperbole well, I'm sorry. What I literally meant is that it is a long-standing problem that goes back as long as there has been philosophy.
> So i guess nobody should ask questions ever.
People should do some research before asking questions, to see if others have asked similar questions. There are hundreds if not thousands of books you could read on the subject, and still not get a clear answer. You're probably not going to find any interesting revelations in a Minichan thread.
With philosophy, like science, we stand on the shoulders of giants. You should try getting up off the ground.
> No i am not. I was asking if my analogy is correct.
OK. Your analogy is incorrect. And that is what you were asking whether you realize it or not.
> From the beginning of time? Also it has not troubled all philosophers at all, some reach conclusions.
Your aspergers makes you not handle hyperbole well, I'm sorry. What I literally meant is that it is a long-standing problem that goes back as long as there has been philosophy.
> So i guess nobody should ask questions ever.
People should do some research before asking questions, to see if others have asked similar questions. There are hundreds if not thousands of books you could read on the subject, and still not get a clear answer. You're probably not going to find any interesting revelations in a Minichan thread.
With philosophy, like science, we stand on the shoulders of giants. You should try getting up off the ground.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,667
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Your analogy is incorrect
> Your aspergers makes you not handle hyperbole well
> People should do some research before asking questions
> You should try getting up off the ground
> do some research before asking questions
Jesus christ broseph. Are you even reading what you type?
> Your analogy is incorrect
> Your aspergers makes you not handle hyperbole well
> People should do some research before asking questions
> You should try getting up off the ground
> do some research before asking questions
Jesus christ broseph. Are you even reading what you type?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,668
@previous (A)
Are you reading what you type? Pretty much everyone in this thread is making fun of you for asking a stupid question. I'm just being more direct about it, and my first response wasn't even an attack on you, I was just trying to point out you why no one took your question seriously. Was everyone telling you to stop doing drugs not a big enough hint?
My favorite response so far
> Then he probably isn't a teacher. Sounds more like he's some kind of vagrant who sneaked into the school after mainlining a couple of bong hits of dope and is now standing in the janitor's closet and rambling incoherently at a mop.
Are you reading what you type? Pretty much everyone in this thread is making fun of you for asking a stupid question. I'm just being more direct about it, and my first response wasn't even an attack on you, I was just trying to point out you why no one took your question seriously. Was everyone telling you to stop doing drugs not a big enough hint?
My favorite response so far
> Then he probably isn't a teacher. Sounds more like he's some kind of vagrant who sneaked into the school after mainlining a couple of bong hits of dope and is now standing in the janitor's closet and rambling incoherently at a mop.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,669
@553,615 (A)
Mountainman? Is that you? Asking someone to explain a perfectly researchable subject and regurgitate it for you is a classical MM gambit. (And then researching said subject and pretending like you presented said argument in the first place) Tell me you have returned!
> Your aspergers makes you not handle hyperbole well,
Well, you didn't say "spastic"...
The insulting treatment of questions to your statements reeks of MM.
Are you his Sith apprentice or are you him?
Mountainman? Is that you? Asking someone to explain a perfectly researchable subject and regurgitate it for you is a classical MM gambit. (And then researching said subject and pretending like you presented said argument in the first place) Tell me you have returned!
> Your aspergers makes you not handle hyperbole well,
Well, you didn't say "spastic"...
The insulting treatment of questions to your statements reeks of MM.
Are you his Sith apprentice or are you him?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,670
@553,668 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I was also just being direct to you. I don't really care if the question is stupid, i care if there is a sensible answer and there isn't. Its more like people with the kind of attitude you have:
i know best even though i can't tell you why your question is stupid not why you are incorrect, go read a book and asking questions is forbidden because others have already asked that question
I was also just being direct to you. I don't really care if the question is stupid, i care if there is a sensible answer and there isn't. Its more like people with the kind of attitude you have:
i know best even though i can't tell you why your question is stupid not why you are incorrect, go read a book and asking questions is forbidden because others have already asked that question
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,671
@553,669 (G)
> Asking someone to explain a perfectly researchable subject
So people are not allowed to explain a subject?
> Asking someone to explain a perfectly researchable subject
So people are not allowed to explain a subject?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,672
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,673
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Its not like you could contribute anything. You just like to pretend you know something but really all you can do is tell people to stop asking questions.
Its not like you could contribute anything. You just like to pretend you know something but really all you can do is tell people to stop asking questions.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,674
@553,671 (A)
There are good questions and bad questions. When you ask questions without even trying to do any sort of research and just expect people to research it for you and regurgitate shit, it's a shitty question. Spend at least half an hour reading up the philosophy behind your question, refine it, come back with specific questions about the parts you don't understand. People don't like to feel like they're talking to a 4-year-old who's just asking "Why?"
You might want to start with a simple Google search for something like "Is morality objective?" which is basically your 100+ word post summed up into 3. And I thought I was bad at not being succinct.
There are good questions and bad questions. When you ask questions without even trying to do any sort of research and just expect people to research it for you and regurgitate shit, it's a shitty question. Spend at least half an hour reading up the philosophy behind your question, refine it, come back with specific questions about the parts you don't understand. People don't like to feel like they're talking to a 4-year-old who's just asking "Why?"
You might want to start with a simple Google search for something like "Is morality objective?" which is basically your 100+ word post summed up into 3. And I thought I was bad at not being succinct.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,675
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> There are good questions and bad questions
pretening to know why the question is bad
> When you ask questions without even trying to do any sort of research
I have done research actually and i found out i am 100% right. If you want to ask me how i am right, then you have to do your own research. This is how you sound like
> expect people to research it for you
I expect people with an opinion to have a basis for that opinion. But not you clearly.
> search for something like "Is morality objective?"
Not what i am asking like i told you. Why do you think i was asking this? Because you are stupid and asking you to explain yourself is just too much isn't it?
> There are good questions and bad questions
pretening to know why the question is bad
> When you ask questions without even trying to do any sort of research
I have done research actually and i found out i am 100% right. If you want to ask me how i am right, then you have to do your own research. This is how you sound like
> expect people to research it for you
I expect people with an opinion to have a basis for that opinion. But not you clearly.
> search for something like "Is morality objective?"
Not what i am asking like i told you. Why do you think i was asking this? Because you are stupid and asking you to explain yourself is just too much isn't it?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,676
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 52 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,677
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,679
@previous (A)
I gave you an answer and you replied with "You just can't answer because you're stupid!" Yeah, you got me. You sound like a 4-year-old.
I gave you an answer and you replied with "You just can't answer because you're stupid!" Yeah, you got me. You sound like a 4-year-old.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,680
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
You never did. Copy that answer or maybe (may be asking to much) remember the answer and repeat it. You can't and you know it.
You never did. Copy that answer or maybe (may be asking to much) remember the answer and repeat it. You can't and you know it.
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 25 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,681
@553,671 (A)
At no point did I say people are not allowed to explain a subject. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, BTW. I didn't say say that. You said that. If FA or Broseph would like to explain things, then that is their right. It's just that subjects that are easily researched are requested by you to be parroted in a post by users to you. You have access to most of human knowledge here on the Internet? Seriously? You give a shit about some subject but can't be bothered to do any work to find references for subjects related to it? That's lazy thinking. That's how most people see you... or as a troll. You can't find resources more relevant than some posts on a forum?? Are you not realizing the potential of what you are accessing? Can you not Google the names that are mentioned and read those works? If you are so learned, why is this a problem?
At no point did I say people are not allowed to explain a subject. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, BTW. I didn't say say that. You said that. If FA or Broseph would like to explain things, then that is their right. It's just that subjects that are easily researched are requested by you to be parroted in a post by users to you. You have access to most of human knowledge here on the Internet? Seriously? You give a shit about some subject but can't be bothered to do any work to find references for subjects related to it? That's lazy thinking. That's how most people see you... or as a troll. You can't find resources more relevant than some posts on a forum?? Are you not realizing the potential of what you are accessing? Can you not Google the names that are mentioned and read those works? If you are so learned, why is this a problem?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,683
@previous (G)
> If FA or Broseph would like to explain things, then that is their right. It's just that subjects that are easily researched are requested by you
I am not asking for an entire fucking research, simply asking why they think their opinions are right. Is that too much to ask in a conversation?
> If FA or Broseph would like to explain things, then that is their right. It's just that subjects that are easily researched are requested by you
I am not asking for an entire fucking research, simply asking why they think their opinions are right. Is that too much to ask in a conversation?
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,684
@previous (A)
> Not what i am asking like i told you. Why do you think i was asking this? Because you are stupid and asking you to explain yourself is just too much isn't it?
LOL Seriously dude.
Ad hominem. You are decadent. Rand Paul 2016!
> Not what i am asking like i told you. Why do you think i was asking this? Because you are stupid and asking you to explain yourself is just too much isn't it?
LOL Seriously dude.
Ad hominem. You are decadent. Rand Paul 2016!
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 32 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,685
@553,680 (A)
> > No i am not. I was asking if my analogy is correct.
> OK. Your analogy is incorrect.
^This is the simple answer your simple question deserved. If you want to know why, it's because morality is not objective, or at the very least clearly not as objective as mathematics. I refuse to explain further than that not because I cannot but because I do not feel like writing a fucking research paper on the finer points of moral universalism. This is why Anon G and I are insisting you research it yourself if you want to understand why this is my answer.
> > No i am not. I was asking if my analogy is correct.
> OK. Your analogy is incorrect.
^This is the simple answer your simple question deserved. If you want to know why, it's because morality is not objective, or at the very least clearly not as objective as mathematics. I refuse to explain further than that not because I cannot but because I do not feel like writing a fucking research paper on the finer points of moral universalism. This is why Anon G and I are insisting you research it yourself if you want to understand why this is my answer.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,686
My opinion is OP is a faggot
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 39 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,687
@553,685 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Finally a little bit of an answer from you. Took a long enough fucking time, all you did was say that i had aspergers, did drugs and whine when i called you stupid and thus call me a 4 year old.
Now would be the point that i would ask you more questions and then maybe we could have a conversation but clearly that is not going to happen. You guys are idiots and i am being completely honest.
Don't dare asking me why i think you guys are idiots, i don't want to write a research paper on it. Thanks for nothing.
Finally a little bit of an answer from you. Took a long enough fucking time, all you did was say that i had aspergers, did drugs and whine when i called you stupid and thus call me a 4 year old.
Now would be the point that i would ask you more questions and then maybe we could have a conversation but clearly that is not going to happen. You guys are idiots and i am being completely honest.
Don't dare asking me why i think you guys are idiots, i don't want to write a research paper on it. Thanks for nothing.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,688
is this what happens when iceland guy is on drugs?
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,690
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I may make completely stupid threads sometimes. This may be one of them and you are all too much of idiots to explain why. But i am never someone who goes around posting images of a anime girl all day. filthy weeaboo.
I may make completely stupid threads sometimes. This may be one of them and you are all too much of idiots to explain why. But i am never someone who goes around posting images of a anime girl all day. filthy weeaboo.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,693
@previous (A)
But she's not actually an anime girl! The show is made entirely in America. So, technically, she is merely anime-esque.
But she's not actually an anime girl! The show is made entirely in America. So, technically, she is merely anime-esque.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 29 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,694
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,696
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 30 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,697
@553,687 (A)
> Not what i am asking like i told you. Why do you think i was asking this? Because you are stupid and asking you to explain yourself is just too much isn't it?
Seriously, ad hominem, bro.
> Now would be the point that i would ask you more questions and then maybe we could have a conversation but clearly that is not going to happen.
It's not going to happen because no one takes you seriously even on a backwater Internet forum.
> Don't dare asking me why i think you guys are idiots, i don't want to write a research paper on it.
I'm sure that would seem daunting to a person of your dazzling intellect.
Please keep dazzling us. We like attention and people obviously worlds above us intellectually but not able to support any of their ideas.
> Not what i am asking like i told you. Why do you think i was asking this? Because you are stupid and asking you to explain yourself is just too much isn't it?
Seriously, ad hominem, bro.
> Now would be the point that i would ask you more questions and then maybe we could have a conversation but clearly that is not going to happen.
It's not going to happen because no one takes you seriously even on a backwater Internet forum.
> Don't dare asking me why i think you guys are idiots, i don't want to write a research paper on it.
I'm sure that would seem daunting to a person of your dazzling intellect.
Please keep dazzling us. We like attention and people obviously worlds above us intellectually but not able to support any of their ideas.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,698
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 48 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,699
@553,697 (G)
Maybe nobody takes me serious on minichan? This is the only time i have had this result when asking my beloved questions.
Maybe nobody takes me serious on minichan? This is the only time i have had this result when asking my beloved questions.
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,701
@previous (A)
So... What are these beloved questions? Maybe we can try? Maybe no one here takes your views seriously? Why can't we disagree? Is that bad?
So... What are these beloved questions? Maybe we can try? Maybe no one here takes your views seriously? Why can't we disagree? Is that bad?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,703
@previous (G)
We can disagree but when the conversation just deteriorates into calling me names, troll, 4 year old, aspergers, drug addict, lazy etc... then obviously its about more then disagreeing. Also i still mean it, i think your an idiot and i wouldn't dream of asking you questions. So like, just deal with it and don't be butt hurt.
We can disagree but when the conversation just deteriorates into calling me names, troll, 4 year old, aspergers, drug addict, lazy etc... then obviously its about more then disagreeing. Also i still mean it, i think your an idiot and i wouldn't dream of asking you questions. So like, just deal with it and don't be butt hurt.
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,705
@previous (A)
> calling me names, troll, 4 year old, aspergers
Pretty sure that was you. At no point did Broseph say any of those words. (Okay, well maybe 4-year-old, but you pretty much baited him into this) I invite people to read the post history wherein OP sounds like a crazy person.
@553,687 (A)
YOU.
You said that. Not anyone else.
Deal with it. You're're a troll. Fucking live with it. If you want to have a an actual discussion, then please act like a rational human being.
> calling me names, troll, 4 year old, aspergers
Pretty sure that was you. At no point did Broseph say any of those words. (Okay, well maybe 4-year-old, but you pretty much baited him into this) I invite people to read the post history wherein OP sounds like a crazy person.
@553,687 (A)
YOU.
You said that. Not anyone else.
Deal with it. You're're a troll. Fucking live with it. If you want to have a an actual discussion, then please act like a rational human being.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,707
@553,681 (G)
You said most people see me as a troll. I proved you wrong.
@553,661 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
said i had aspergers
So you just deal with it okay man? You are an idiot and that is okay. If you still don't believe that then your a lost hope. Good bye, have a nice day.
You said most people see me as a troll. I proved you wrong.
@553,661 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
said i had aspergers
So you just deal with it okay man? You are an idiot and that is okay. If you still don't believe that then your a lost hope. Good bye, have a nice day.
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,709
@previous (A)
> You said most people see me as a troll. I proved you wrong.
Oh okay.
> said i had aspergers
Didn't you say that?
> You said most people see me as a troll. I proved you wrong.
Oh okay.
> said i had aspergers
Didn't you say that?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,710
@previous (G)
No man i did not. Here is a tip, control + f. Sorry i called you a idiot, but you pretty much baited me into it.
Also for real, i will leave this thread now and its not because i don't like you i am just really sick of this vibe that ALL of us created. So... leaving now don't take it personally.
No man i did not. Here is a tip, control + f. Sorry i called you a idiot, but you pretty much baited me into it.
Also for real, i will leave this thread now and its not because i don't like you i am just really sick of this vibe that ALL of us created. So... leaving now don't take it personally.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 17 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,711
@previous (K)
> Sorry i called you a idiot
> a idiot
Thank you for admitting this.
> So... leaving now don't take it personally.
Just taking it as a sign of you having no idea what you are saying. Have a nice life! Hope to see you come back in another UID!!
Thanks for the fun! Hope you drop in again!
> Sorry i called you a idiot
> a idiot
Thank you for admitting this.
> So... leaving now don't take it personally.
Just taking it as a sign of you having no idea what you are saying. Have a nice life! Hope to see you come back in another UID!!
Thanks for the fun! Hope you drop in again!
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,712
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,713
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,720
@553,615 (A)
Look buddy I am not obligated to do your research for you, digest it into bite-size chunks and then spoon feed it back to you. I know what moral relativism because I have a fucking bachelor's degree in philosophy. Nothing you have said here is new or insightful or a difficult question. I have told you the school of thought you're following is incorrect and I even told you where on the internet and in real life you could look to find out more about the subject. That is the most I am willing to do for you at the moment. If you did the tiny bit of independent research I suggested, I would happily look at the same material and then talk it over with you but since you show no initiative and want everyone else to do your work for you and then tell you what the answer is, you're SOL.
So if we can distill some useful life advice out of what happened in this thread:
1. Make sure your questions are clear and direct.
2. When people try to help you, be courteous and grateful that people took time out of their life to help you understand things.
3. When someone with relevant expertise and knowledge tells you you are wrong and how you can find out more, don't imply they don't know what they're talking about.
Seriously, there are more physicists still advocating geocentrism than there are philosophers who think moral relativism is true, it is covered in literally any intro level philosophy class that spends more than a week on morality, and you think I need to read more on it? God. Better tell those chemists to read up on phlogiston theory while you're at it.
Look buddy I am not obligated to do your research for you, digest it into bite-size chunks and then spoon feed it back to you. I know what moral relativism because I have a fucking bachelor's degree in philosophy. Nothing you have said here is new or insightful or a difficult question. I have told you the school of thought you're following is incorrect and I even told you where on the internet and in real life you could look to find out more about the subject. That is the most I am willing to do for you at the moment. If you did the tiny bit of independent research I suggested, I would happily look at the same material and then talk it over with you but since you show no initiative and want everyone else to do your work for you and then tell you what the answer is, you're SOL.
So if we can distill some useful life advice out of what happened in this thread:
1. Make sure your questions are clear and direct.
2. When people try to help you, be courteous and grateful that people took time out of their life to help you understand things.
3. When someone with relevant expertise and knowledge tells you you are wrong and how you can find out more, don't imply they don't know what they're talking about.
Seriously, there are more physicists still advocating geocentrism than there are philosophers who think moral relativism is true, it is covered in literally any intro level philosophy class that spends more than a week on morality, and you think I need to read more on it? God. Better tell those chemists to read up on phlogiston theory while you're at it.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #553,723
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I have a fucking bachelor's degree in philosophy.
That's cool and all, but I'm afraid that this guy's musings have given him an even better insight into philosophy than you or your philosophy teachers.
I know it's odd that the guy without any philosophy qualifications has such a better understanding of the subject than the guy with one, but that's clearly what's going on here.
> I have a fucking bachelor's degree in philosophy.
That's cool and all, but I'm afraid that this guy's musings have given him an even better insight into philosophy than you or your philosophy teachers.
I know it's odd that the guy without any philosophy qualifications has such a better understanding of the subject than the guy with one, but that's clearly what's going on here.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)