Language is like a finger pointing at the moon.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM4n1Jntqw0[/youtube]
Nah, that’s just like solving a crypto quiz in th paper.
Once the substitution is known, it’s still easy to communicate. That’s why on this board, we make people define their terms in really technical arguments. Instead of assuming we’re all using the same definitions.
“So you’re linguistic token for blue is red, ok, let’s assume that and go from there”
I wish that were true.
Enjoy your game.
Much more devastating than that problem is this problem:
“Well, I guess we just agree to disagree”
This is what subjectivists are doing:
Well it’s only subjective that everyone on earth needs to drink water when they’re thirsty, to survive a maximum of two weeks.
If everyone NEEDS to do it, it’s not subjective, but rather, objective!
“Well, I don’t need to drink water to not die of dehydration” (as they’re drinking water in front of you)
“It’s just subjective that you think you’re seeing me drink water right now, I’m really not”
So… there’s a meta analysis of this:
Men need to conspicuously consume rationality to appear fit sexually to a female.
Females don’t have a motive for self contradiction, they are evil just for evils own sake. You probably could assign a motive, that females don’t want to be caught for being so evil, so they gravitate to self contradiction (subjectivity) for that reason.
The short of it is, this behavior can all be explained on a meta level, objectively.
What if you’re stuck in a conversation with a someone too prideful or stubborn to ever admit to any fault… or an idiot?
You have to educate everyone on what it means to assert dominance so that self contradictory people feel self conscious. This era is the renaissance of self contradiction because of the feminist movement.
That’s why we have to go through these inane discussions, because self contradiction, cannibalizing rationality is the ornate mating behavior in this species.
They’re not debating to get to the truth, they’re debating to get laid. Higher stakes for most men.
I want to back up a bit, that may have been unclear.
I’m not against women’s liberation. However, in stating that, as we moved forward with womens liberation, the biggest problem with women was never voiced, (while we’ve all been told the problems with men) and because of this, we have effectively destroyed the earth.
Women look specifically for self refutation as a sign that a male is more fit.
Had we addressed that globally, we wouldn’t be in this shitstorm right now.
Female sexuality fractures community. Community is dependent upon non contradiction.
That’s what I meant to say …
Now, in saying that, males are responsible for their acting out just as females are for only picking those males.
If you know about afterlives as I do, and you look deeply into this problem, you realize that almost everyone dropped the ball here, so, it’s prudent if you care about others, to develop systems that bypass the sin here… I.e. Hyperdimensional mirror realities
Btw, I would NOT claim to be a subjectivist inclined to subjectivism.
Note;
There is no Yin without Yang within reality-as-it-is.
Just the same as there is no subjectivity without objectivity and vice-versa.
Thus I am not a pure subjectivist but rather a subjectivist-objectivist in complementariness.
The glue that reconcile the two dichotomy subjectivist versus objectivist is Critical Philosophy.
Kant was once a hardcore rationalist [reason prevails over all] until he encountered Hume as a hard core empiricist [experience prevails over all] which then awoke him from his dogmatic slumber stuck to reason alone.
After his 10 years of dogmatic slumber Kant awoke to reconcile the dichotomy with Critical Philosophy and reconciled the “is” and “ought”.
It took Kant [one of the greatest W philosophers of all times] 10 years and I took 3+ years full time to understand Kant. Most are stuck in the default of objectivity prevails and it is not easy to get out of the default [due to initial].
Note Kant [para rearranged, edited],
It takes a lot of hard work to free oneself from the illusion because the default is so instinctual and ingrained via 3 billion to 6 million of evolutionary solidification.
In any initiation attempt, one will be blasted with initial, cognitive dissonance, activated defense mechanism and pains and thus one will normally fall back to where one is comfortable.
This is the correct postion to hold rather than simply claiming one to the total exclusion of the other one
As everyone is a subjectivist / objectivist regardless of how they personally choose to describe themselves
Bingo
The subjectivists prefer to describe things from a first person perspective and the objectivists describe it from a 3rd person perspective.
But they are describing the same damned things… and then arguing about who can describe it better.
It can be pretty fun to watch though 
The subjectivist says murder is often wrong, subject to specifics of situations.
The objectivist says murder is always wrong, subject to nothing; it just is.
How is that a 3rd person perspective?
Moral relativity and moral absolute is not the same damn thing anymore than Newtonian Physics and Relativity is the same damn thing.
Murder in self defense in any country on earth is legal.
Nobody really believe in “turn the other cheek”
“Oh, you really want to fuck me in the ass, with an aids dick? Ok, I’ll turn the other cheek”
Nobody believes that shit.
They are just expressing their personal opinion…
Those opinion are NOT logically NECESSARY as a consequence of being an objectivist or subjectivist.
You are no less an objectivist if you said “murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation”
You are no less a subjectivist if you said “Murder is always wrong, when subject to my judgement”
There is no such thing as murder in self defence because they are entirely separate categories
Murder is illegal eveywhere in the world whereas self defence is legal so they are not the same
Sometimes the subjectivist / objectivist thinks subjectively
Sometimes the subjectivist / objectivist thinks objectively
The subjectivist does not think subjectively all of the time
The objectivist does not think objectively all of the time
Ergo everyone is a subjectivist / objectivist because everyone thinks either subjectively or objectively all of the time
I say that murder is always wrong and so as a subjectivist / objectivist this is an example of me thinking objectively
On other issues though I may think subjectively which is why I cannot label myself as just one or the other but both
Almost all murder is self defense. Once you know that, this defense no longer applies to you.
You see, everyone is constantly attacking everyone on this earth. Some people react differently to this than others. What you think of as murder, I see as self defense.
I’ve never physically wounded a person in my life, but I understand it.
The Law of Non-Contradiction states there cannot be p and not-p at the same time and in the same sense.
Therefore one cannot be a subjectivist and an objectivists at the same time in the same sense.
However one can be subjectivist and an objectivists at the same time in DIFFERENT senses or perspectives.
Within morality and ethics, I am a moral objectivist but I accept absolute moral laws as guides only, i.e. not to be enforceable but to be encouraged.
But at the same time I am a ethical subjectivist [consequentialist] in that provisions and allowance must be made to accommodate the different circumstances and conditions a person is in.
The difference between the Moral Objective absolute standard and the practical ethical subjectivist state creates a Moral Gap which can be used as a measurement for improvements [closing the gap] towards the objective ideal.
Then it should not be called murder. It would be justifiable homocide (self defense), not murder in self-defense. the concept of murder includes the quality of being not justified, illegal and immoral. So it has to be a separate category from justifiable killings.
Attacked is here being used vaguely. And understanding something, the motives, the feelings, does not change it from murder to self-defense. One can certainly feel like one is justified, because they ‘said’ ‘did’ something that was an attack or felt like one. The precise nature of murder means that the degree and kind of attack did not warrant killing the person. Which is precisely why you can understand the murderers, but have not killed yourself. You understand that they felt attacked and often there was some kind of attack or trigger to they idea of themselves or what they valued, but their response did not fit the situation. If you have some exceptions, and also do not kill but merely understand, than the separate of the categories murder and justifiable homocide is one you accept also. You may differ on specific cases, but you accept the difference.
Opinions are subjective, which makes everyone a subjectivist.
I don’t understand that. If it’s an opinion that “murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation”, then how does that make one an objectivist?