And ya'll thought video games were the only insignificant thing in your lives taking up way too much time.
Welcome to OnRPG General™
Reputation: 265
And ya'll thought video games were the only insignificant thing in your lives taking up way too much time.
Welcome to OnRPG General™
Reputation: 235
Because, clearly, you're typing from a park whilst playing with a frisbee. Unlike us.Originally Posted by Paladuck
Reputation: 372
IMO, debates are healthy. Doesn't matter if they're done while taking a walk with your friends, or if they're done at the general section on a forum you frequent regularly.
And moral debates are always interesting, and relevant. We live in a world, were a large part of the population have their moral compusses set on auto-pilot as demanded by their holy scripts, were arbitrarily accepted claims like "homosexuality is wrong" rules how they percieve and how they treat their fellow man.
Even if the chance is low, there is a chance that somebody reads this thread and gets new ideas for arguments or questions they may want to use the next time they are confronted with such attitudes, and for that reason alone, I think threads like these are much more valuable than the large amount of bland threads that are usually made on forums.
Personally, I'd much rather spend my time maintaining my English, and exchanging opinions with people online, rather than have my brain melt watching CSI Miami on TV.
The Common Sense United Front
ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA
Reputation: 265
Wow, I can't believe you managed to read a "I'm cooler than all of you" subtext into my post.
This really is the best thread ever.
Reputation: 154
Yeah, Norrin just pulled that out of his bum. The real meaning was obvious.
Reputation: 292
These types of discussions seem to only matter when there is a person joining in who believes morality is objective.
If everyone here thinks morality is subjective then we are all just doing mental masturbation.
Although it is quite funny that people who agree on the foundation of the topic can still find something petty to argue about.
It's like we both agree that the banana in front of us is yellow, but I see a brown spot on it so I am going to waste my time arguing about that.
Reputation: 232
The bruised banana is the best banana.
Well, second to the one with the sticker.
Reputation: 87
I read this entire thread.
Reputation: 54
I decided to take a 10 minute break from studying and see what all the hub-ub is about and that right there made me chuckle. Would you say it's ironic or hypocritical that you threw that in there when we both know I've never started a flame war nor ridiculed someone else for their belief?
I'd say it's a little bit of both, Norrin.
Reputation: 235
I never said you were flaming anyone, but you were the first to bring utterly unwarranted petulance to the other thread, hence being questionable.
I'd say that saying, "Aww, did I upset you? I'm glad you responded that way.", in place of a mature counter, coupled with unwarranted personal evaluation, is antagonism. It's how flame wars start.
Here you are, again, not contributing anything of value.
Those that can't do, teach. Those that can't do OR teach, whine.
Reputation: 54
If I recall correctly, I wasn't even talking to you originally. You were the one that constructed a lengthy post belittling everything I said first. I get the very subtle shots you take at people in your posts, Norrin, and I read them quite in full in each and every one of your responses towards me. Stop insulting my intelligence.
Oh yes, I fully agree that that one example you quoted was not an appropriate response nor a mature way of countering any point you may have made. But you're not guilt free of making cheap and snide remarks yourself:
"I am almost always on the winning end of debates because, unlike you, I keep my mouth closed, hands off the keyboard and nose out of the debate unless I absolutely know what I am talking about.
No offense, but you don't."
Really? THAT is what you call an appropriate and mature response? That's how you reply to someone elses opinion? I didn't come in to this topic to contribute, you're right. You called me out, publically. Out of all the names listed, you listed mine as the one person who you questioned would insight a flame war, when we both know I've never done anything of the sort. In doing so, you did the exact thing you claimed I did: you made an "unwarranted personal evaluation", as you put it.
Find where there's any resemblance of whining in my post.. which.. isn't that yet again another example of a petty personalized attack?
If you have anything more to say to me, you can do so in a PM and not by publically throwing in a grossly false assumption and personalized attack. Are we clear?
Reputation: 100
Reputation: 366
Proof and you Sir deserve +rep for reading all this. I can hardly keep up with reading and my head hurts
Reputation: 23
since when did morals exist?
Reputation: 82
Talk shit, get hit.
Hows that for morals.
Ps. I read like 2 words and posted.
Reputation: 316
The whole idea for objective morals is that there is one right view for the universe (three-dot triangle symbol: a god who dictates what is right or wrong). Humans do not have objective morality, different people, or cultures, can have drastically different ideas of what is right / wrong (Women wearing burka's vs bikini's for example).
Objective morality may exist, but humans don't have any way to perceive it.
Reputation: 265
+ 1
Reputation: 201
Morals are relative, nothing is absolute.
In a thousand years morals will have changed probably with the oncoming with new religions and new practices and new ideas and of course due to new lifestyles.
If you believe in God then you believe in free will and with free will then in my opinion morals are just rules we set for ourselves to keep in the boundaries of what we believe is right and wrong and of course what the majority states we can or shouldn't do.
She knows how to party.
Reputation: 316
You quoted me, but you made my initial T, a small t. You're a bad man, I've been misrepresented!
*Edit* Never mind what you did to my name!
Reputation: 235
The only hilarious thing is that you still don't understand why objective morality cannot exist. Even more funny is the fact that you are saying that WE propose it cannot exist based on why YOU think we're saying that.
Objective morality simply cannot exist. It's not a matter of not having the means to prove it, like the Earth being round. It factually and undeniably cannot exist. For it to exist, every single human being alive would have no choice but to agree with it as fact. Objectivity = fact.
That is literally impossible because ever human has free will.
If you don't get the debate, it's best not to join in.
Also, stop saying people are "raging". Nobody's raging. You're being childish because you don't understand what we're saying.
Moral objectivity is impossible. It's factually and undeniably impossible, based on what morals are.
Reputation: 265
Sorry Ronin, maybe it's my fault but I read what you wrote like 5 times and I still don't get it.
I said that criticizing moral objectivity beccause it doesn't exist is logically flawed because no morality exists under your definition of "existence" - subjective, objective or otherwise. The reason why it is not a proper criticism is because that specific criticism applies to all philosophy.
Norrin, nothing you stated in your post addresses anything I specifically said. I talked about how philosophy involves interesting ideas, and moral objectivity is one of them. You're just back again to arguing why moral objectivity is factually impossible. So before you call me childish and tell me to leave the debate, please read, because like you said, reading is never difficult.
Posting Permissions
