Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objectivity for Izbo

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:04:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a genuine attempt to teach Izbo something, I will do my best not to resort to personal attacks however much I am provoked. Other people may contribute but please try to remain civil.

In a number of conversations it has become apparent that Izbo has no concept of objectivity, despite this being a major underpinning of logoc and reason.

For instance,

Me,
Do you believe that if the entire world listened to you for moral guidance, and you wrote a great big book of moral laws that were universally accepted, and never changed, but were followed by all of humanity for evermore that such moral laws would become objective?

Izbo
It would be a moral system based on an objective set of morals

Now I am going to attempt to teach Izbo what is meant by objective.

The simple version
An objective fact is something that exists independently of the mind. For instance Pluto existed before it was discovered by humanity (okay technically that is conjecture but we have to make assumptions somewhere). If there was a nuclear war and we lost all knowledge of Pluto it would still be there. If you convinced everyone in the world that Pluto did not exist it would still exist. If mankind became extinct Pluto would still exist.

The longer version
http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)

Now Izbo do you have any questions?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:18:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll just comment...A simple look at the dictionary reveals that 'objective' means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" or "intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book." http://dictionary.reference.com...

Let us analyze his response, in which he claims that his moral system would be based on "objective set of morals"...Judging by the first definition of objective, it would still not apply if Izbo10 "wrote a great big book of moral laws that were universally accepted", since he is bound to have some sort of prejudice in selecting, writing, and phrasing the laws in his 'big book'...By the second definition, the very fact that the moral system depends on his big book, which in turn depends on the will and thoughts of its creator, makes it invalid to call it objective....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:18:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's hope for Izbo. He's on the cusp of getting it, in my estimation. I fear it is his seething hatred for all things religious that clouds his better judgment.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:56:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:18:56 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's hope for Izbo. He's on the cusp of getting it, in my estimation. I fear it is his seething hatred for all things religious that clouds his better judgment.

I fear its this deep seeded indoctrination that religion deserves any type of respect that is holding you people back.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:57:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:04:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is a genuine attempt to teach Izbo something, I will do my best not to resort to personal attacks however much I am provoked. Other people may contribute but please try to remain civil.

In a number of conversations it has become apparent that Izbo has no concept of objectivity, despite this being a major underpinning of logoc and reason.

For instance,

Me,
Do you believe that if the entire world listened to you for moral guidance, and you wrote a great big book of moral laws that were universally accepted, and never changed, but were followed by all of humanity for evermore that such moral laws would become objective?

Izbo
It would be a moral system based on an objective set of morals

Now I am going to attempt to teach Izbo what is meant by objective.

The simple version
An objective fact is something that exists independently of the mind. For instance Pluto existed before it was discovered by humanity (okay technically that is conjecture but we have to make assumptions somewhere). If there was a nuclear war and we lost all knowledge of Pluto it would still be there. If you convinced everyone in the world that Pluto did not exist it would still exist. If mankind became extinct Pluto would still exist.

The longer version
http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)

Now Izbo do you have any questions?

Objective morality is an unchanging standard of morality that is good in all situations. I don't think you are grasping that.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:04:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:57:15 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:04:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is a genuine attempt to teach Izbo something, I will do my best not to resort to personal attacks however much I am provoked. Other people may contribute but please try to remain civil.

In a number of conversations it has become apparent that Izbo has no concept of objectivity, despite this being a major underpinning of logoc and reason.

For instance,

Me,
Do you believe that if the entire world listened to you for moral guidance, and you wrote a great big book of moral laws that were universally accepted, and never changed, but were followed by all of humanity for evermore that such moral laws would become objective?

Izbo
It would be a moral system based on an objective set of morals

Now I am going to attempt to teach Izbo what is meant by objective.

The simple version
An objective fact is something that exists independently of the mind. For instance Pluto existed before it was discovered by humanity (okay technically that is conjecture but we have to make assumptions somewhere). If there was a nuclear war and we lost all knowledge of Pluto it would still be there. If you convinced everyone in the world that Pluto did not exist it would still exist. If mankind became extinct Pluto would still exist.

The longer version
http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)

Now Izbo do you have any questions?


Objective morality is an unchanging standard of morality that is good in all situations. I don't think you are grasping that.

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:04:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:57:15 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:04:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is a genuine attempt to teach Izbo something, I will do my best not to resort to personal attacks however much I am provoked. Other people may contribute but please try to remain civil.

In a number of conversations it has become apparent that Izbo has no concept of objectivity, despite this being a major underpinning of logoc and reason.

For instance,

Me,
Do you believe that if the entire world listened to you for moral guidance, and you wrote a great big book of moral laws that were universally accepted, and never changed, but were followed by all of humanity for evermore that such moral laws would become objective?

Izbo
It would be a moral system based on an objective set of morals

Now I am going to attempt to teach Izbo what is meant by objective.

The simple version
An objective fact is something that exists independently of the mind. For instance Pluto existed before it was discovered by humanity (okay technically that is conjecture but we have to make assumptions somewhere). If there was a nuclear war and we lost all knowledge of Pluto it would still be there. If you convinced everyone in the world that Pluto did not exist it would still exist. If mankind became extinct Pluto would still exist.

The longer version
http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)

Now Izbo do you have any questions?


Objective morality is an unchanging standard of morality that is good in all situations. I don't think you are grasping that.

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:17:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Perhaps I can clarify here.

There is no such thing as objectivity. It's a myth. Everything is subjective.

The reason for this is simple: We each have an individual perspective, informed by our previous experiences. Every scrap of information we receive through our senses is filtered through our paste experiences with similar perceptions before our brain is able to make sense of it. This means, in essence, that no two people can experience the same input in the exact same way. It's a fact.

Science strives to get as close to objectivity as it can, through use of the scientific method, and for the most part, if the methodology is good, we accept the data as if it were "objective" however, even then any scientist will tell you that it is still, to some extent, subjective.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:24:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?

I did not realise we were playing semantical nonsense games, I believe that my response was directly relevant to what you wrote and that we closer to having a reasonable conversation that at any time previous.

I understood fully that "by good I meant works in all cases". In questions of morality what is good and what is works is pretty much the same thing.

Do you now understand what objective is?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:26:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:17:58 AM, Just1Voice wrote:
Perhaps I can clarify here.

There is no such thing as objectivity. It's a myth. Everything is subjective.

Actually we don't know that.


The reason for this is simple: We each have an individual perspective, informed by our previous experiences. Every scrap of information we receive through our senses is filtered through our paste experiences with similar perceptions before our brain is able to make sense of it. This means, in essence, that no two people can experience the same input in the exact same way. It's a fact.


That is not an argument against objectivity.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:27:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:17:58 AM, Just1Voice wrote:
Perhaps I can clarify here.

There is no such thing as objectivity. It's a myth. Everything is subjective.

The reason for this is simple: We each have an individual perspective, informed by our previous experiences. Every scrap of information we receive through our senses is filtered through our paste experiences with similar perceptions before our brain is able to make sense of it. This means, in essence, that no two people can experience the same input in the exact same way. It's a fact.

Science strives to get as close to objectivity as it can, through use of the scientific method, and for the most part, if the methodology is good, we accept the data as if it were "objective" however, even then any scientist will tell you that it is still, to some extent, subjective.

This thread was not about the existence of objectivity, but what it is essentially defined as...You may be right that "It's a myth", but we are probing at what is considered subjective (derived from bias/prejudice) and objective...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:29:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:24:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?

I did not realise we were playing semantical nonsense games, I believe that my response was directly relevant to what you wrote and that we closer to having a reasonable conversation that at any time previous.

I understood fully that "by good I meant works in all cases". In questions of morality what is good and what is works is pretty much the same thing.

Do you now understand what objective is?

yes in terms of morality, it is a standard of morality that is unchanging. Where as subjective morality is up to the opinion. I believe in objective morality, that there is a right and wrong in each situation, but when we make a blanket statement like murder is wrong, it really is not 100% accurate, but more of a most likely probable statement as their are acceptions as the description murder does not take into account the full range of circumstances needed to make that judgment. But, from a practical purpose assumptions like this do serve their purpose.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:29:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:56:03 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:18:56 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's hope for Izbo. He's on the cusp of getting it, in my estimation. I fear it is his seething hatred for all things religious that clouds his better judgment.

I fear its this deep seeded indoctrination that religion deserves any type of respect that is holding you people back.:

Your hubris is impressive. How is it that everyone on the forum, atheist and theist, can all see what you cannot? Figure it out. You are the common denominator here. What's the odds that we're all crazy versus you being the sole sane person versus the other way around?

Seriously, check your narcissism at the door and figure it out, buddy.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:31:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:29:47 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:56:03 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:18:56 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's hope for Izbo. He's on the cusp of getting it, in my estimation. I fear it is his seething hatred for all things religious that clouds his better judgment.

I fear its this deep seeded indoctrination that religion deserves any type of respect that is holding you people back.:

Your hubris is impressive. How is it that everyone on the forum, atheist and theist, can all see what you cannot? Figure it out. You are the common denominator here. What's the odds that we're all crazy versus you being the sole sane person versus the other way around?

Seriously, check your narcissism at the door and figure it out, buddy.

The world is flat, we all see it, why can't you. how'd that one work out for you?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:33:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, an attempt to teach Izbo10 something has degenerated into an exchange of insults and ad hom statements...This goes to show that any attempt to educate or at least reform a member of adamant, like him, is bound to fail...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:35:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:33:45 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
Well, an attempt to teach Izbo10 something has degenerated into an exchange of insults and ad hom statements...This goes to show that any attempt to educate or at least reform a member of adamant, like him, is bound to fail...

education through argument from majority fallacy? really?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:36:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:29:47 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:56:03 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:18:56 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's hope for Izbo. He's on the cusp of getting it, in my estimation. I fear it is his seething hatred for all things religious that clouds his better judgment.

I fear its this deep seeded indoctrination that religion deserves any type of respect that is holding you people back.:

Your hubris is impressive. How is it that everyone on the forum, atheist and theist, can all see what you cannot? Figure it out. You are the common denominator here. What's the odds that we're all crazy versus you being the sole sane person versus the other way around?

Seriously, check your narcissism at the door and figure it out, buddy.

My experience in philosophy and ethics, the majority struggled while i didn't study barely tried and got easy As.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:37:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:35:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:33:45 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
Well, an attempt to teach Izbo10 something has degenerated into an exchange of insults and ad hom statements...This goes to show that any attempt to educate or at least reform a member of adamant, like him, is bound to fail...

education through argument from majority fallacy? really?
Education through review of philosophy. Not 'argument from majority fallacy', for God's sake.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:52:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I urge you all to read through this.

http://williamjamesstudies.org...

It relates directly to the discussion you are having here. Please note that the basic conclusion is that what we consider to be objective information only gets that label through consensus. We agree to call it "objective information" even though we as individuals are incapable of objectivity.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:55:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:29:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:24:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?

I did not realise we were playing semantical nonsense games, I believe that my response was directly relevant to what you wrote and that we closer to having a reasonable conversation that at any time previous.

I understood fully that "by good I meant works in all cases". In questions of morality what is good and what is works is pretty much the same thing.

Do you now understand what objective is?

yes in terms of morality, it is a standard of morality that is unchanging. Where as subjective morality is up to the opinion. I believe in objective morality, that there is a right and wrong in each situation, but when we make a blanket statement like murder is wrong, it really is not 100% accurate, but more of a most likely probable statement as their are acceptions as the description murder does not take into account the full range of circumstances needed to make that judgment. But, from a practical purpose assumptions like this do serve their purpose.

The defintion of objective is not something that does not change, you are misusing the term. Did you not pay any attention to the OP?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:59:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:35:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:33:45 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
Well, an attempt to teach Izbo10 something has degenerated into an exchange of insults and ad hom statements...This goes to show that any attempt to educate or at least reform a member of adamant, like him, is bound to fail...

education through argument from majority fallacy? really?

He did not actually say that.

I am trying to teach you the definitions of certain words, and yes I am arguing from a common consensus but that is not an argument from majority fallacy because language is a consensus.

I have still yet to see any evidence that you understand what objective means, even though I have provided you with definitions.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:01:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:36:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:29:47 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:56:03 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:18:56 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's hope for Izbo. He's on the cusp of getting it, in my estimation. I fear it is his seething hatred for all things religious that clouds his better judgment.

I fear its this deep seeded indoctrination that religion deserves any type of respect that is holding you people back.:

Your hubris is impressive. How is it that everyone on the forum, atheist and theist, can all see what you cannot? Figure it out. You are the common denominator here. What's the odds that we're all crazy versus you being the sole sane person versus the other way around?

Seriously, check your narcissism at the door and figure it out, buddy.

My experience in philosophy and ethics, the majority struggled while i didn't study barely tried and got easy As.

I wouldn't know but surely a basic introduction to philosophy would cover the concept of objectivity?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:01:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:55:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:29:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:24:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?

I did not realise we were playing semantical nonsense games, I believe that my response was directly relevant to what you wrote and that we closer to having a reasonable conversation that at any time previous.

I understood fully that "by good I meant works in all cases". In questions of morality what is good and what is works is pretty much the same thing.

Do you now understand what objective is?

yes in terms of morality, it is a standard of morality that is unchanging. Where as subjective morality is up to the opinion. I believe in objective morality, that there is a right and wrong in each situation, but when we make a blanket statement like murder is wrong, it really is not 100% accurate, but more of a most likely probable statement as their are acceptions as the description murder does not take into account the full range of circumstances needed to make that judgment. But, from a practical purpose assumptions like this do serve their purpose.

The defintion of objective is not something that does not change, you are misusing the term. Did you not pay any attention to the OP?

http://answers.yahoo.com...

not the best source, but it does give the best answer as agreeing with what I am saying, objective morality is always the same, does not change, because it is RIGHT. Not subject to change.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:06:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 11:01:47 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:55:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:29:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:24:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?

I did not realise we were playing semantical nonsense games, I believe that my response was directly relevant to what you wrote and that we closer to having a reasonable conversation that at any time previous.

I understood fully that "by good I meant works in all cases". In questions of morality what is good and what is works is pretty much the same thing.

Do you now understand what objective is?

yes in terms of morality, it is a standard of morality that is unchanging. Where as subjective morality is up to the opinion. I believe in objective morality, that there is a right and wrong in each situation, but when we make a blanket statement like murder is wrong, it really is not 100% accurate, but more of a most likely probable statement as their are acceptions as the description murder does not take into account the full range of circumstances needed to make that judgment. But, from a practical purpose assumptions like this do serve their purpose.

The defintion of objective is not something that does not change, you are misusing the term. Did you not pay any attention to the OP?

http://answers.yahoo.com...


not the best source, but it does give the best answer as agreeing with what I am saying, objective morality is always the same, does not change, because it is RIGHT. Not subject to change.

Well thats not an aspect I have considered because objective morality is an intellectual dead end generally supported by people who do not understand the ramifications of the term. In any case 'unchanging' is not the sole defining value of objective morality, as I have pretty much shown already.

If you are a moral objectivist please tell me a few objective moral facts and how these facts were discovered?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:08:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 11:06:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 11:01:47 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:55:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:29:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:24:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?

I did not realise we were playing semantical nonsense games, I believe that my response was directly relevant to what you wrote and that we closer to having a reasonable conversation that at any time previous.

I understood fully that "by good I meant works in all cases". In questions of morality what is good and what is works is pretty much the same thing.

Do you now understand what objective is?

yes in terms of morality, it is a standard of morality that is unchanging. Where as subjective morality is up to the opinion. I believe in objective morality, that there is a right and wrong in each situation, but when we make a blanket statement like murder is wrong, it really is not 100% accurate, but more of a most likely probable statement as their are acceptions as the description murder does not take into account the full range of circumstances needed to make that judgment. But, from a practical purpose assumptions like this do serve their purpose.

The defintion of objective is not something that does not change, you are misusing the term. Did you not pay any attention to the OP?

http://answers.yahoo.com...


not the best source, but it does give the best answer as agreeing with what I am saying, objective morality is always the same, does not change, because it is RIGHT. Not subject to change.

Well thats not an aspect I have considered because objective morality is an intellectual dead end generally supported by people who do not understand the ramifications of the term. In any case 'unchanging' is not the sole defining value of objective morality, as I have pretty much shown already.

If you are a moral objectivist please tell me a few objective moral facts and how these facts were discovered?

I think each situation has an objective right or wrong, that we do our best to judge whether it was or was not right, but we may not have all the facts, but for instance the holocaust, would be reasonably certain that it was wrong.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:10:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 11:01:47 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:55:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:29:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:24:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?

I did not realise we were playing semantical nonsense games, I believe that my response was directly relevant to what you wrote and that we closer to having a reasonable conversation that at any time previous.

I understood fully that "by good I meant works in all cases". In questions of morality what is good and what is works is pretty much the same thing.

Do you now understand what objective is?

yes in terms of morality, it is a standard of morality that is unchanging. Where as subjective morality is up to the opinion. I believe in objective morality, that there is a right and wrong in each situation, but when we make a blanket statement like murder is wrong, it really is not 100% accurate, but more of a most likely probable statement as their are acceptions as the description murder does not take into account the full range of circumstances needed to make that judgment. But, from a practical purpose assumptions like this do serve their purpose.

The defintion of objective is not something that does not change, you are misusing the term. Did you not pay any attention to the OP?

http://answers.yahoo.com...


not the best source, but it does give the best answer as agreeing with what I am saying, objective morality is always the same, does not change, because it is RIGHT. Not subject to change.

Based on this line of thinking, then, every action taken should be either "right" or "Wrong". Black and white. however, because we are individuals, we cannot know whether the action is right or wrong until AFTER the action has been taken and we can gain enough distance to see the effects of that action in retrospect.

Moreover, we will not really be certain that our judgement of that action is correct until the universe ends, and we can see the ultimate result of the action in crystal clarity. So yes, there may be an unchanging "right" and "wrong" but we will never know what they are.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:20:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 11:10:45 AM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 11:01:47 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:55:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:29:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:24:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?

I did not realise we were playing semantical nonsense games, I believe that my response was directly relevant to what you wrote and that we closer to having a reasonable conversation that at any time previous.

I understood fully that "by good I meant works in all cases". In questions of morality what is good and what is works is pretty much the same thing.

Do you now understand what objective is?

yes in terms of morality, it is a standard of morality that is unchanging. Where as subjective morality is up to the opinion. I believe in objective morality, that there is a right and wrong in each situation, but when we make a blanket statement like murder is wrong, it really is not 100% accurate, but more of a most likely probable statement as their are acceptions as the description murder does not take into account the full range of circumstances needed to make that judgment. But, from a practical purpose assumptions like this do serve their purpose.

The defintion of objective is not something that does not change, you are misusing the term. Did you not pay any attention to the OP?

http://answers.yahoo.com...


not the best source, but it does give the best answer as agreeing with what I am saying, objective morality is always the same, does not change, because it is RIGHT. Not subject to change.

Based on this line of thinking, then, every action taken should be either "right" or "Wrong". Black and white. however, because we are individuals, we cannot know whether the action is right or wrong until AFTER the action has been taken and we can gain enough distance to see the effects of that action in retrospect.

Moreover, we will not really be certain that our judgement of that action is correct until the universe ends, and we can see the ultimate result of the action in crystal clarity. So yes, there may be an unchanging "right" and "wrong" but we will never know what they are.

true that is my view there is a right or wrong, but we can only do our best to figure what it is out.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:21:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 11:08:09 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 11:06:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 11:01:47 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:55:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:29:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:24:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:16:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Good is a subjective value term, for instance for me a burger is good, for a vegetarian it is bad, for the guy with shares in Burger-me-quick it is good, for the cow it is bad. All these are subjective considerations.

can we quit playing semantical nonsense games or is that all you are good at, by good I meant works in all cases, are you that stupid that you can't have a reasonable conversation?

I did not realise we were playing semantical nonsense games, I believe that my response was directly relevant to what you wrote and that we closer to having a reasonable conversation that at any time previous.

I understood fully that "by good I meant works in all cases". In questions of morality what is good and what is works is pretty much the same thing.

Do you now understand what objective is?

yes in terms of morality, it is a standard of morality that is unchanging. Where as subjective morality is up to the opinion. I believe in objective morality, that there is a right and wrong in each situation, but when we make a blanket statement like murder is wrong, it really is not 100% accurate, but more of a most likely probable statement as their are acceptions as the description murder does not take into account the full range of circumstances needed to make that judgment. But, from a practical purpose assumptions like this do serve their purpose.

The defintion of objective is not something that does not change, you are misusing the term. Did you not pay any attention to the OP?

http://answers.yahoo.com...


not the best source, but it does give the best answer as agreeing with what I am saying, objective morality is always the same, does not change, because it is RIGHT. Not subject to change.

Well thats not an aspect I have considered because objective morality is an intellectual dead end generally supported by people who do not understand the ramifications of the term. In any case 'unchanging' is not the sole defining value of objective morality, as I have pretty much shown already.

If you are a moral objectivist please tell me a few objective moral facts and how these facts were discovered?

I think each situation has an objective right or wrong, that we do our best to judge whether it was or was not right, but we may not have all the facts, but for instance the holocaust, would be reasonably certain that it was wrong.

If your morality is objective it must be based on a set of rules or principles, like logic.

"If the holocaust wrong?"

I can address that question, can you? What makes it wrong to you and how is that objective?

Remember objective does not simply mean 'unchanging'.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:22:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 11:20:29 AM, izbo10 wrote:

true that is my view there is a right or wrong, but we can only do our best to figure what it is out.

Exactly, it is personal subjective opinion.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:28:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 11:22:38 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/7/2011 11:20:29 AM, izbo10 wrote:

true that is my view there is a right or wrong, but we can only do our best to figure what it is out.

Exactly, it is personal subjective opinion.

we subjectively figure out whether each situation we beleive to be moral, that is not the same as the actual morality of the situation.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.