Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral nihilism and its failure!

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are 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.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:39:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
how do you churn out this garbage so fast?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:39:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm impressed!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:43:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:39:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
how do you churn out this garbage so fast?

First of all show any fallacy in here and anything that is wrong, asserting it wrong does not make it so idiot.
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
9/11/2011 6:43:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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
9/11/2011 6:44:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:43:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


You hold this position you might want to explain why I am wrong about it. But the funny part will be you have no argument against it you are just scared to think and will try to avoid it all expense to your dignity.
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
9/11/2011 6:45:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sorry I shouldn't be posting silly youtube clips, I just read the OP. It's far more hilarious than anything I could produce. I might email that to a certain Professor!
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
9/11/2011 6:47:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:45:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Sorry I shouldn't be posting silly youtube clips, I just read the OP. It's far more hilarious than anything I could produce. I might email that to a certain Professor!

You might want to show it invalid asserting such means nothing just that you can't come up with why it is 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.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:53:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:47:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:45:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Sorry I shouldn't be posting silly youtube clips, I just read the OP. It's far more hilarious than anything I could produce. I might email that to a certain Professor!

You might want to show it invalid asserting such means nothing just that you can't come up with why it is wrong.

Izbo what do you want from me? What is it you would have me do?

I point out your errors and you troll me, I teach you stuff and you troll me, I ignore you and you troll me. I could affirmed the case for moral nihilism in a debate, but no that was not good enough so you troll me. How many threads are going to be created on the same topic? Am I going to be humiliating you again and again and again... only for you to come back with absurd bull crap that shows you have no idea what the argument is about?

What the flying fvck do you want from me? Why do I even have to participate anymore, you have already started editing my views so why don't you just pretend I am replying and make it up as you go along?

You don't want to discuss morality on the forums, you don't want a formal debate on morality, you don't want to understand what morality is yet here you are bombarding me with crap about morality?
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
9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.
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.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:57:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

So you equate accepting them in terms of logic but not morality as a contradiction, Bozo?
"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
9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.
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.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:59:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

A fascinating attempt at equivocating between "true" and "rightness" as the sole derivative of the predicate "judgement."

You really should be proud of this one, Izbo. Academic inquiry at its finest.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:59:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.

So moral nihilism is arrived through logic? So please explain the "logic" behind moral nihilism for us...
"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
9/11/2011 7:02:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:59:29 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.

So moral nihilism is arrived through logic? So please explain the "logic" behind moral nihilism for us...

You are completely unable to comprehend, I am saying it is self refuting, because it makes a judgement based on no evidence on logical rights and wrongs. When it fails to grant the same standard to moral rights and wrongs. One standard one way, another standard the other way.
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.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 7:04:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:02:00 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:59:29 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.

So moral nihilism is arrived through logic? So please explain the "logic" behind moral nihilism for us...


You are completely unable to comprehend, I am saying it is self refuting, because it makes a judgement based on no evidence on logical rights and wrongs. When it fails to grant the same standard to moral rights and wrongs. One standard one way, another standard the other way.

No--it makes a judgement based on no evidence of MORAL rights and wrongs, not logic rights and wrongs. Much in the same way that you believe God does not exist because there is a lack of evidence.

MORAL nihilist- no objective MORAL truths.

Ninny.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 7:04:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Assumptions:

1. A statement is true is if there is a corresponding state of affairs ("Snow is white" is true if snow is white").

2. A statement which does not refer to a state of affairs, hypothetical or otherwise, cannot be evaluated as true or false.

3. Statements of logic and of empirical phenomena has corresponding state of affairs.

4. Moral claims have no corresponding state of affairs in reality. (There is no correspondence for "Killing is bad" as opposed to "Trees have leaves" and "If A then not (not A)."

5. Moral noncognitivism/nihilism posits that moral statements have no corresponding state of affairs in reality. Therefore, moral statements SPECIFICALLY lack truth values.

Read this a few times then come back. If you want, I can reformulate this without using Correspondence Theory, but it's the most prominent definition.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 7:05:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:53:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:47:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:45:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Sorry I shouldn't be posting silly youtube clips, I just read the OP. It's far more hilarious than anything I could produce. I might email that to a certain Professor!

You might want to show it invalid asserting such means nothing just that you can't come up with why it is wrong.

Izbo what do you want from me? What is it you would have me do?

I point out your errors and you troll me, I teach you stuff and you troll me, I ignore you and you troll me. I could affirmed the case for moral nihilism in a debate, but no that was not good enough so you troll me. How many threads are going to be created on the same topic? Am I going to be humiliating you again and again and again... only for you to come back with absurd bull crap that shows you have no idea what the argument is about?

What the flying fvck do you want from me? Why do I even have to participate anymore, you have already started editing my views so why don't you just pretend I am replying and make it up as you go along?

You don't want to discuss morality on the forums, you don't want a formal debate on morality, you don't want to understand what morality is yet here you are bombarding me with crap about morality?

This has been ignored I'll try again.

Izbo ignores all the most relevant 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
9/11/2011 7:06:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:02:00 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:59:29 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.

So moral nihilism is arrived through logic? So please explain the "logic" behind moral nihilism for us...


You are completely unable to comprehend, I am saying it is self refuting, because it makes a judgement based on no evidence on logical rights and wrongs. When it fails to grant the same standard to moral rights and wrongs. One standard one way, another standard the other way.

You've been equivocating different senses of right or wrong and conflating them to prove your point.

Let me ask another question, does moral nihilism concern "evidence on logical rights or wrong"? How can something that deals with ethics also deal with logic?
"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
9/11/2011 7:06:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:04:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:02:00 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:59:29 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.

So moral nihilism is arrived through logic? So please explain the "logic" behind moral nihilism for us...


You are completely unable to comprehend, I am saying it is self refuting, because it makes a judgement based on no evidence on logical rights and wrongs. When it fails to grant the same standard to moral rights and wrongs. One standard one way, another standard the other way.

No--it makes a judgement based on no evidence of MORAL rights and wrongs, not logic rights and wrongs. Much in the same way that you believe God does not exist because there is a lack of evidence.

MORAL nihilist- no objective MORAL truths.

Ninny.

It is making an statement that it is objectively wrong to believe that there are objective morality. All you have to do is look at it this way. You see the utter failure as it assumes objective logical truths(there is no objective morality) without evidence, but does not grant this for objective morality.
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.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 7:07:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:06:16 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:04:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:02:00 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:59:29 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.

So moral nihilism is arrived through logic? So please explain the "logic" behind moral nihilism for us...


You are completely unable to comprehend, I am saying it is self refuting, because it makes a judgement based on no evidence on logical rights and wrongs. When it fails to grant the same standard to moral rights and wrongs. One standard one way, another standard the other way.

No--it makes a judgement based on no evidence of MORAL rights and wrongs, not logic rights and wrongs. Much in the same way that you believe God does not exist because there is a lack of evidence.

MORAL nihilist- no objective MORAL truths.

Ninny.

It is making an statement that it is objectively wrong to believe that there are objective morality. All you have to do is look at it this way. You see the utter failure as it assumes objective logical truths(there is no objective morality) without evidence, but does not grant this for objective morality.

False. A moral nihilist wouldn't say that it is morally wrong to believe in objective morality because OBJECTIVE MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST!
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 7:10:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:06:16 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:04:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:02:00 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:59:29 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.

So moral nihilism is arrived through logic? So please explain the "logic" behind moral nihilism for us...


You are completely unable to comprehend, I am saying it is self refuting, because it makes a judgement based on no evidence on logical rights and wrongs. When it fails to grant the same standard to moral rights and wrongs. One standard one way, another standard the other way.

No--it makes a judgement based on no evidence of MORAL rights and wrongs, not logic rights and wrongs. Much in the same way that you believe God does not exist because there is a lack of evidence.

MORAL nihilist- no objective MORAL truths.

Ninny.

It is making an statement that it is objectively wrong to believe that there are objective morality. All you have to do is look at it this way. You see the utter failure as it assumes objective logical truths(there is no objective morality) without evidence, but does not grant this for objective morality.

Let us look back at the definition of moral nihilism, again:
"Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality"
"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
9/11/2011 7:10:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:07:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:06:16 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:04:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:02:00 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:59:29 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.

So moral nihilism is arrived through logic? So please explain the "logic" behind moral nihilism for us...


You are completely unable to comprehend, I am saying it is self refuting, because it makes a judgement based on no evidence on logical rights and wrongs. When it fails to grant the same standard to moral rights and wrongs. One standard one way, another standard the other way.

No--it makes a judgement based on no evidence of MORAL rights and wrongs, not logic rights and wrongs. Much in the same way that you believe God does not exist because there is a lack of evidence.

MORAL nihilist- no objective MORAL truths.

Ninny.

It is making an statement that it is objectively wrong to believe that there are objective morality. All you have to do is look at it this way. You see the utter failure as it assumes objective logical truths(there is no objective morality) without evidence, but does not grant this for objective morality.

False. A moral nihilist wouldn't say that it is morally wrong to believe in objective morality because OBJECTIVE MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST!

That also presents the same problem you are assuming objective logical truth "objective morality doesn't exist" without evidence, any you accept it exists, but deny objective morality on exactly the same grounds.
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
9/11/2011 7:11:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:53:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:47:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:45:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Sorry I shouldn't be posting silly youtube clips, I just read the OP. It's far more hilarious than anything I could produce. I might email that to a certain Professor!

You might want to show it invalid asserting such means nothing just that you can't come up with why it is wrong.

Izbo what do you want from me? What is it you would have me do?

I point out your errors and you troll me, I teach you stuff and you troll me, I ignore you and you troll me. I could affirmed the case for moral nihilism in a debate, but no that was not good enough so you troll me. How many threads are going to be created on the same topic? Am I going to be humiliating you again and again and again... only for you to come back with absurd bull crap that shows you have no idea what the argument is about?

What the flying fvck do you want from me? Why do I even have to participate anymore, you have already started editing my views so why don't you just pretend I am replying and make it up as you go along?

You don't want to discuss morality on the forums, you don't want a formal debate on morality, you don't want to understand what morality is yet here you are bombarding me with crap about morality?

Third attempt.
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.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 7:12:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:10:14 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:07:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:06:16 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:04:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:02:00 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:59:29 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:58:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:56:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:54:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:48:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:37:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I am going to lay out how moral nihilism is a logically inconsistent worldview once and for all. Moral nihilism says that there are no objective morals. This is a value judgement of right or wrong. Either it is right or wrong to say there are objective morals. What type of right and wrong is it? Well if its a moral right or wrong the position is obviously self refuting and fails. There is a second more likely possibility of it saying there are objective right and wrongs in logic.
1. Can moral stances be applied to statements?
2. Is moral nihilism a "value judgment of right or wrong" or is it something that discounts both?

Now for the Moral Nihilist to make this claim, he must make a judgement. Where does he get that something is right or wrong in a logical sense. Can the moral nihilist prove this? Not a chance, the second the moral nihilist would attempt to demonstrate right or wrong ways of logic, they would be begging the question. So, the conclusion is on one hand the moral nihilist just accepts objective rights and wrongs and doesn't accept objective moral rights and wrong. This is especially true when the moral nihilist attempts to tell a believer in objective morality that they are wrong.

1. Can "right" or "wrong" apply to degrees of correctness, not morality?
yes right or wrong in terms of logical correctness, yet the nihilist has not way to prove these are objectively right or wrong, but yet accepts them and denies moral rights and wrongs, that was the point.

Moral Nihilist:

objective morality- none based on no evidence
objective logic- believes without evidence

inconsistent much.

Lol, there's a difference between moral nihilism and nihilism, ya ninny.

to be just a moral nihilist would be inconsistent and special pleading one way or the other since moral nihilism by default makes a value judgement of right or wrong logically, which if the person was consistent they should not.

So moral nihilism is arrived through logic? So please explain the "logic" behind moral nihilism for us...


You are completely unable to comprehend, I am saying it is self refuting, because it makes a judgement based on no evidence on logical rights and wrongs. When it fails to grant the same standard to moral rights and wrongs. One standard one way, another standard the other way.

No--it makes a judgement based on no evidence of MORAL rights and wrongs, not logic rights and wrongs. Much in the same way that you believe God does not exist because there is a lack of evidence.

MORAL nihilist- no objective MORAL truths.

Ninny.

It is making an statement that it is objectively wrong to believe that there are objective morality. All you have to do is look at it this way. You see the utter failure as it assumes objective logical truths(there is no objective morality) without evidence, but does not grant this for objective morality.

False. A moral nihilist wouldn't say that it is morally wrong to believe in objective morality because OBJECTIVE MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST!

That also presents the same problem you are assuming objective logical truth "objective morality doesn't exist" without evidence, any you accept it exists, but deny objective morality on exactly the same grounds.

I deny objective morality because there is literally no support for it. I'd even go as far as to say that objective morality is less likely to exist than God.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 7:13:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:11:35 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:53:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:47:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:45:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Sorry I shouldn't be posting silly youtube clips, I just read the OP. It's far more hilarious than anything I could produce. I might email that to a certain Professor!

You might want to show it invalid asserting such means nothing just that you can't come up with why it is wrong.

Izbo what do you want from me? What is it you would have me do?

I point out your errors and you troll me, I teach you stuff and you troll me, I ignore you and you troll me. I could affirmed the case for moral nihilism in a debate, but no that was not good enough so you troll me. How many threads are going to be created on the same topic? Am I going to be humiliating you again and again and again... only for you to come back with absurd bull crap that shows you have no idea what the argument is about?

What the flying fvck do you want from me? Why do I even have to participate anymore, you have already started editing my views so why don't you just pretend I am replying and make it up as you go along?

You don't want to discuss morality on the forums, you don't want a formal debate on morality, you don't want to understand what morality is yet here you are bombarding me with crap about morality?

Third attempt.

You declined my debate based on it was objectively wrong to be intellectually dishonest. Sees like a hypocrite to me. You claim to be nihilist but you actions don't make me think so.
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
9/11/2011 7:14:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:13:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:11:35 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:53:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:47:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:45:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Sorry I shouldn't be posting silly youtube clips, I just read the OP. It's far more hilarious than anything I could produce. I might email that to a certain Professor!

You might want to show it invalid asserting such means nothing just that you can't come up with why it is wrong.

Izbo what do you want from me? What is it you would have me do?

I point out your errors and you troll me, I teach you stuff and you troll me, I ignore you and you troll me. I could affirmed the case for moral nihilism in a debate, but no that was not good enough so you troll me. How many threads are going to be created on the same topic? Am I going to be humiliating you again and again and again... only for you to come back with absurd bull crap that shows you have no idea what the argument is about?

What the flying fvck do you want from me? Why do I even have to participate anymore, you have already started editing my views so why don't you just pretend I am replying and make it up as you go along?

You don't want to discuss morality on the forums, you don't want a formal debate on morality, you don't want to understand what morality is yet here you are bombarding me with crap about morality?

Third attempt.

You declined my debate based on it was objectively wrong to be intellectually dishonest. Sees like a hypocrite to me. You claim to be nihilist but you actions don't make me think so.

When did I say that?
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.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 7:14:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 7:13:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 7:11:35 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:53:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:47:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:45:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Sorry I shouldn't be posting silly youtube clips, I just read the OP. It's far more hilarious than anything I could produce. I might email that to a certain Professor!

You might want to show it invalid asserting such means nothing just that you can't come up with why it is wrong.

Izbo what do you want from me? What is it you would have me do?

I point out your errors and you troll me, I teach you stuff and you troll me, I ignore you and you troll me. I could affirmed the case for moral nihilism in a debate, but no that was not good enough so you troll me. How many threads are going to be created on the same topic? Am I going to be humiliating you again and again and again... only for you to come back with absurd bull crap that shows you have no idea what the argument is about?

What the flying fvck do you want from me? Why do I even have to participate anymore, you have already started editing my views so why don't you just pretend I am replying and make it up as you go along?

You don't want to discuss morality on the forums, you don't want a formal debate on morality, you don't want to understand what morality is yet here you are bombarding me with crap about morality?

Third attempt.

You declined my debate based on it was objectively wrong to be intellectually dishonest. Sees like a hypocrite to me. You claim to be nihilist but you actions don't make me think so.

Enough with the red herrings and ad homs, izbo. Just admit that it that moral nihilism is a valid viewpoint.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus