Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Of course it's a you-problem if you lack abstract thinking.

Heh. The turntables.

[Skepdick]

The only point here is that you can't use the program Python itself to make any big claim.

I can and I did.

Anything subject to choice is fair game in a moral subjectivist world-view.

Every "normative" you hold precious - it's mine now. Laws? What laws?

Play stupid games - win stupid prizes.

[Atla]

Of course it's a you-problem if you lack abstract thinking.

Heh. The turntables.

You've always been wrong about this so there never were any turned tables

[Atla]

The only point here is that you can't use the program Python itself to make any big claim.

I can and I did.

Anything subject to choice is fair game in a moral subjectivist world-view.

Every "normative" you hold precious - it's mine now. Laws? What laws?

Play stupid games - win stupid prizes.

So you're making the point that subjectivism is subjectivism?
Please stop.. the world can't handle more such shattering..

[Skepdick]

Of course it's a you-problem if you lack abstract thinking.

Heh. The turntables.

You've always been wrong about this so there never were any turned tables

Great!

Which means you are going to define "wrong" for us now, aren't you?

[Skepdick]

So you're making the point that subjectivism is subjectivism?
Please stop.. the world can't handle more such shattering..

Haven't you seen all the moral outrage from the "moral skeptics" ?

It's fucking priceless.

[Atla]

Heh. The turntables.

You've always been wrong about this so there never were any turned tables

Great!

Which means you are going to define "wrong" for us now, aren't you?

If you don't know what it means to be wrong about something..

[Skepdick]

If you don't know what it means to be wrong about something..

When you define it - I'll now.

[Atla]

So you're making the point that subjectivism is subjectivism?
Please stop.. the world can't handle more such shattering..

Haven't you seen all the moral outrage from the "moral skeptics" ?

It's fucking priceless.

Whatever you say. Moral objectivists and those who think that morals should be handled 100% freely are both kinda crazy.

[Atla]

If you don't know what it means to be wrong about something..

When you define it - I'll now.

Well since apparently you don't talk to real people in the real world so you have no practice, you'll find it in the dictionary..

[Skepdick]

Whatever you say. Moral objectivists and those who think that morals should be handled 100% freely are both kinda crazy.

Whatever, I am just making free choices...

Define this new rule. Undefine that old rule.

I don't see a reason to stop...

[Skepdick]

If you don't know what it means to be wrong about something..

When you define it - I'll now.

Well since apparently you don't talk to real people in the real world so you have no practice, you'll find it in the dictionary..

That definition's circular.

I was hoping for somethign non-circular.

[Atla]

When you define it - I'll now.

Well since apparently you don't talk to real people in the real world so you have no practice, you'll find it in the dictionary..

That definition's circular.

I was hoping for somethign non-circular.

Non-circular within a limited scope, or universally non-circular? If you are after the latter then that's your problem. Good luck

[Skepdick]

Non-circular within a limited scope, or universally non-circular? If you are after the latter then that's your problem. Good luck

Non-circular within the limited scope of language.

I think even with the former you have a problem. Good luck

[Atla]

Non-circular within a limited scope, or universally non-circular? If you are after the latter then that's your problem. Good luck

Non-circular within the limited scope of language.

I think even with the former you have a problem. Good luck

Okay good luck finding a language that doesn't run into a circularity problem. I'll root for you.. from far away..