If you were actually following the discussion, you’d understand that noone “ran away”. But you didn’t, and you never do, so you just make shit up.
ok then demonstrate how you can determine that a belief is objectively true or false.
Explain to us what you mean by “objectively true” and then I may answer your question.
we went over this idiot. i say mozarts music is beatiful, my brother says its ugly…show me how you determine who is objectively right.
Are you talking about transhumanism or resurrection?
Why do you think wanting life/mind to be endless is fear-based? Do you not love life/mind?
Isn’t it funny these two statements exist in the same universe? :
a) there is no accounting for taste
b) that was tasteless / that was done in bad/poor taste
good+beautiful+true=
God
good=beautiful+true
beautiful=good+true
true=good+beautiful
Now all you need to do is define those terms and give examples according to that formula^
See my harmonic triads thread (& everywhere else I do this sort of thing) for a head start.
A 5 year old could do it.
this guy us unbelievable…he is as bad as the 90 year old clown SATIRE when it comes to being a sophistic slime clown…asking me to prove his own arguments hahahhahahahahha
let me spell it out for you you donkey:
OBJECTIVELY TRUE IS WHATEVE YOU YOURSELF MEAN WHAT YOU SAY THESE THINGS ARE OBJECTIVELY TRUE…WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT ME TO DEFINE THAT FOR YOU WHEN ITS YOUR OWN FUCKING IDEA??? you are not right in your head bro WTF!!!
when we argue with others, usually…you define what you mean yourself bro…how old were your parents when they had you???just out of curiosity…
PY … so full of piss & vinegar.
Nah, I am asking you to explain what you mean by “objectively true”. You asked me to “demonstrate how [one] can determine that a belief is objectively true”. If you want me to do that, you’d have to explain what meaning you assigned to the words you used in that statement, so that I don’t end up incorrectly guessing their meaning and wasting everyone’s time.
Except that I never use the term “objectively true”. It is YOUR term. If you want me to defend something I said, then you should QUOTE me.
Did you even understand what I said?
Since you think I’m your bro, you should know that answer yourself. But fortunately, I am not.
i could show exactly how much a liar and a kooky hypocrite you are by retrieving the relevant discussion and how you ghosted it with no explanation after my exhaustive reply to you idiot ass…and i could show you asserted this objective truth yourself you smelly liar slime…but i have self respect and won waste my fucking time on doing shit like that with dishonest kooks like yourself…who cares… fuck you and you rat dishonest face you bitch
Poland Young,
Magnus Anderson,
Which theory in ethics/politics (why & how to be a person with other persons) points to (ends well/beautifully…noble…life/joy) a person(s) who actually practices it (does good) and whose character is described by it (is true)?
You already know/ignore “my” answer. What’s “yours”?
Who gets to say who lives and who dies?
The Good Samaritan
…and what was the verdict?
You said that “there are no truths and false [sic] in moral or ethical propositions”. You said it in the opening post of this thread. This is what I responded to. And this is how I responded to it.
You responded to this sarcastically by saying . . .
I responded by ignoring your sarcasm and affirming your statement. I took it that by “objective, independently decidable, truth value” you simply meant “truth”. A pleonasm is what I thought it was, given that your original statement was “there are no truths and false [sic] in moral or ethical propositions”.
I also went on to explain to you the difference between what someone likes and what is good for someone.
Then you responded by making it very clear that you have absolutely no clue what I’m saying.
Emphasis is mine.
You clearly don’t understand the difference between something that is truly good and something that is universally good.
And then, at the end of your post, you try to convince us you understood it all, contradicting yourself.
You didn’t understand a thing.
In one of my subsequent posts, I explained what a statement such as “Mozart is beautiful” can possibly mean. Here it is:
You then responded by reminding us that you don’t understand the difference between “real good” and “universal good” and that what I am talking about is not the universal good but the real good.
Your original claim was that abortion is wrong for women. You didn’t make it clear whether that applies to SOME women or ALL women. You just said that it is wrong. And all I did is ask you to explain why you believe that to be the case. Even if you only had ONE woman in mind, the question is STILL answerable and your claim that it can’t be done is FALSE.
Then you tell us this . . .
. . . as if my claim was “Mozart is beautiful because Mozart is good for someone”. Again, a sign of you not listening to what other people are saying. All I did was explain what the statement MEANS. I said that “Mozart is beautiful” is synonymous with “Mozart’s music is good for someone”. I did NOT make a claim as to WHY it’s good.
We all know you are, Polish Youth from the Past.
Substitute “Men” and “Male” with “Polish Youth” and we can agree.
I think you got the words “male” and “female” mixed . . . but not that it’s important.
So you didn’t say “Abortion is wrong”, you said “killing people out of convenience is wrong” and “abortion is an act of killing”. It’s not aliens but it’s aliens. And you’re not saying it’s wrong for women who abort but that it’s wrong for you. You’re basically saying it is affecting YOU in a negative way ( not necessarily those women who are performing abortions. ) But you didn’t explain how it affects you and you also didn’t explain why anyone should care. Obviously, if it’s good for women to abort, they should continue aborting; but perhaps if they know how it impacts you, they might be able to, and want to, do something to make it easier for you.
And there is that famous statement of yours, “It’s irrelevant what the consequences will be because they have not yet happened”. You must be the greatest anti-thinker that has ever lived. “Don’t think about the future, it has yet to happen!”
This is more or less where our discussion ended and where Motor Daddy came in and accused me of fascism because I implied that forums should be strictly moderated ( silly little leftist thing to do. )
This was written on January 22nd. It’s March 31st right now. On the other hand, Ecmandu announced his retirement a year ago and he’s still here.
So, MA, you mention preference. Would you say it’s just a matter of subjective/individual(us) preference unless the preference is balanced by what is both true for all persons (not reified) and applied (acted, justified)?
Revaluation cannot be reification… I will go that far with Nietzsche.
True creation is in line with the eternal. Again: that far.
I just did it for you.
But note that all you have to do is search for the key terms such as “objectively true” and “objective truth” on the first couple of pages ( no more than 3, since our conversation didn’t last that long. ) And I can’t assure you that you cannot find a single instance of these terms. You didn’t use them either.
whats objective value of mozart have to do with determining whether something is objectively moral, like you claim is possible to do? its the same thing you goofball, a determination of objective truths about personal values and beliefs, preferences, tastes yadadadadada
i am not saying determine facts about preferences, i am saying about determine true preferences.
