Okay, I’ll bite…
What on earth does that have to do with a discussion of what either does or does not constitute a reasonable standard?
Let’s take this up. You know, now that Fixed Cross and Mr. Reasonable have given up poking holes in my own existential contraption. 
Probably some kind of white power thing. You know these guys are all the same. I mean, drink some kool aid, but drink more than one kind every now and then. Balance people. Balance. Don’t be a cliche.
Hilarious how insanely stupid you are.
Yeah yeah. Your mom.
Again though:
What on earth does that have to do with a discussion of what either does or does not constitute a reasonable standard?
Come on, here’s your chance to note just how insanely stupid I am too.
Noted.
Why is everything European “White Supremacy”?
Why go along with that racism?
Why can’t people have their culture without being called out on their race?
Thats really sad, man.
Uruz’ reference was directly to the good life I said you represent.
Well, now is your chance to demonstrate that. Let’s resume our exchange.
Here’s the OP that started it:
And this is where we left off:
Please, by all means, note just how insanely stupid my points are.
I like to eat meat, and I like women, so that symbol is alright with me.
=D> thank you sir for telling me. that what you like and dont like. but why im supposed to give any piss for your liking and not liking ? who the damn are you ? 
are you Krishna ? OR his recognzied agent ? so that i take care for you and your deeds ?
Glad to have salvaged this.
Runes are life-affirming, despite the filthy shit the nazis did with them.
I consider it possible that the regime committed suicide because they were working with symbols too powerful for their puny souls.
You registered to this site … for this?
Mods - why was this post approved?
This clown couldn’t make it clearer that he is a troll and will have to be banned soon, waste of time.
Okay, that’s your reasonable standard. But my reasonable standard [here and now] is that any particular individual’s reasonable standard is rooted existentially in the life that he or she lives.
In other words, other individuals profess reasonable standards that revolve around not eating meat; and there are other men who profess to liking men sexually, romantically. Rather than women.
So, is there a reasonable standard – the reasonable standard – that philosophers are able to ascribe to all rational and virtuous human beings?
Or, instead, are value judgments of this sort embedded and embodied more in “existential contraptions”?
Is your “I” here in sync with the man that you really are [or were always meant to be] or is it more the result of a particular sequence of experiences in a particular life out in a particular world that merely predisposed you to think and to feel and to behave as you do now?
That is satisfactory as far as it.goes, when You qualified the difference with ‘more’.
But just as.the artist.is indifferentiable from his art , ( and yet not be confused, for art requires that subtlety) , that standard should-must measure into it.
The optics of a majority vision goes by. the ’ more ’ qualifier, here and now, the Kantian morality dictates a more.definitive definitive view.
Its not an absolute standard but a pretty universal one nonetheless.
Why is it universal? Because it presents a proper challenge and reward system.
I appreciate Mr Rs standards because they relate to values quite universal among people and are not easy to attain. Thats a good set of criteria.
And thus I also feel that someone who wishes to denounce these values as relevant must first prove to be able to attain them as a way of life.
Mr R, perhaps you could give a list of demands that need to be met to maintain your standards, from easy to hard.
You have to start somewhere if you’re making a stab at workable public ethics, and it seems to be a bad idea to start with oneself. But also I would not argue that my particular standards and ways of meeting them are very relevant to most people, where Im sure Mr Rs are. Which is why he prides himself on beng reasonable too - to me it would be unthinkable to pick such a name. My nature is very much conflict-seeking, even though Im good at resolving very deep problems - these solutions also require approaches that seem far from reasonable to most people.
Proxy-ethics.
Ed3 is the other guy that I could use as a standard.
The Ed3 Standard. Maybe I can use both.
Empirical standards of ethics is what Im after. That brings along with it a kind of materialism, but certainly no dialectic. It is only about positing vs that which is posited a priori, which doesn’t respond. One simply carries salt, there is no truth to the process, only value.
Or, as Satyr might insist, a “natural” standard.
True enough. Most people around the globe do eat meat and do engage in heterosexual relationships.
Is that then close enough to a “reasonable standard” for all rational and virtuous men and women?
Sure, if this is what you have managed to think yourself into believing. And, really, why take it further than that? Even in a venue like this you can make this claim and be done with all those who are not in sync with eating meat or heterosexual relationships.
My point though is that in a No God world there does not appear to be an argument that can be made able to demonstrate that this standard is one that all rational men and women are obligated to embody. That, if others refuse to except this standard, then they are necessarily wrong.
Also, that the manner in which individuals come to embrace one rather than another political prejudice here, is rooted, as well, in the actual constellation of existential variables [out in a particular world] that have come [so far] to constitute their lived life.
On the other hand, how are conflicting narratives here to be interpreted from the perspective of “value ontology”?
What on earth does that even mean here?
So start a thread about it.