BDM - It's not a sex thing

[attofishpi]

...

You are wasting my time. Here's a copy and paste from a previous answer to the same junk.

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

Yet they are not equally well founded! Things founded per opinion, and well reasoned opinion can easily be measured as to their level of "ethical standards" relationally, relatively.

Do you want an example?

Until I see something from you that merits new text, reheats is is all you deserve.

Sounds like you are starting to panic.

[FlashDangerpants]

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

[attofishpi]

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

Yet they are not equally well founded! Things founded per opinion, and well reasoned opinion can easily be measured as to their level of "ethical standards" relationally, relatively.

Do you want an example?

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you want an example?

Yes.

[attofishpi]

Do you want an example?

Yes.

A man decides that his wife should be burned alive beside a river upon his death, his opinion is that it is within his ethical standards.

My opinion is that it is totally unethical.

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you want an example?

Yes.

A man decides that his wife should be burned alive beside a river upon his death, his opinion is that it is within his ethical standards.

My opinion is that it is totally unethical.

I amsure you hold that opinion most firmly and you feel entirely right in this matter. But unless that stops your opinion from being founded on opinion, it is still an opinion not a fact.

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

[attofishpi]

Yes.

A man decides that his wife should be burned alive beside a river upon his death, his opinion is that it is within his ethical standards.

My opinion is that it is totally unethical.

I amsure you hold that opinion most firmly and you feel entirely right in this matter. But unless that stops your opinion from being founded on opinion, it is still an opinion not a fact.

Doesn't need to be a fact. It needs to be reasoned as to a degree, a level of ethical standard which is the point I am making that subjective ethics still has a value indeed a 'yardstick'. If you note below, you mention nothing requiring "FACT".


If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.


In statics, answers can be considered FACT based on subjective data.

[FlashDangerpants]

Enough, I am done with you hijacking my thread to discuss this off topic shit. I created it becasue I was bored of all the discussion in this sub being nohting but "is morality objective?" and I resent that you are making my thread just that.

Here are several relevant threads for you to do this in...

What could make morality objective?
Is morality objective or subjective?
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=42748
Moral: Classes of Realism
Incest Deterrence & Morality is Objectivity

So deal with the OP or go to one of those threads with this junk. Or start your own thread if you like.

[attofishpi]

Enough, I am done with you hijacking my thread to discuss this off topic shit. I created it becasue I was bored of all the discussion in this sub being nohting but "is morality objective?" and I resent that you are making my thread just that.

But we are not talking about whether or not "morality is objective"..

So, point out where I am off topic.

..and let's not forget our accord - once I get my philosophical 'magnum opus' argument to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists.

(Although, I'm seriously starting to doubt your reasoning capacity and you will be required to put all bias (atheism) aside)

Here are several relevant threads for you to do this in...

So deal with the OP or go to one of those threads with this junk. Or start your own thread if you like.

I'm starting to think I might be upsetting you?

PS. I just read the important bit of your OP. I'll have a look at Ch2 and Ch3 lateron

PPS. Did I at least educate you, that subjective morality has a measurable yardstick?

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm starting to think I might be upsetting you?

It's worse than that, you are boring me. Taking the converation in a tedious circle while you fail to understand that the difference between opinion and fact is one of type not quantity is not how I intend to spend my time.

PS. I just read the important bit of your OP. I'll have a look at Ch2 and Ch3 lateron

You previously claimed to have already done this with the line ..
"I've read through your 1,2,3 and have some opinions that you may or may not accept as part of the ""great work" - whether you feel what I have to say is of worth is moot."
... You have shown little comprehension of anything you've read so far, I don't know if it will make any difference.


Obviously I knew you were lying about reading them though. 2 and 3 both start with a quick reminder of what BDM means.

PPS. Did I at least educate you, that subjective morality has a measurable yardstick?

No, your argument is beneath stupid, but I don't care, it has recieved all the time that it is going to get from me. I gave you a list of relevant threads to waste somebody else's time in with that junk. Immanuel Can would be perfectly capable of dealing with that argument.

[attofishpi]

I'm starting to think I might be upsetting you?

It's worse than that, you are boring me. Taking the converation in a tedious circle while you fail to understand that the difference between opinion and fact is one of type not quantity is not how I intend to spend my time.

PS. I just read the important bit of your OP. I'll have a look at Ch2 and Ch3 lateron

You previously claimed to have already done this with the line ..
"I've read through your 1,2,3 and have some opinions that you may or may not accept as part of the ""great work" - whether you feel what I have to say is of worth is moot."
... You have shown little comprehension of anything you've read so far, I don't know if it will make any difference.

Obviously I knew you were lying about reading them though. 2 and 3 both start with a quick reminder of what BDM means.

I was plastered..remember? (cos I don't remember reading 2 n 3) So I'm not lying, it's not part of my character...occasionally getting shit-faced is.

PPS. Did I at least educate you, that subjective morality has a measurable yardstick?

No, your argument is beneath stupid, but I don't care, it has recieved all the time that it is going to get from me. I gave you a list of relevant threads to waste somebody else's time in with that junk. Immanuel Can would be perfectly capable of dealing with that argument.

Ad Hominem me ol' mucker!

You have no valid argument against my statement: that subjective morality has a measurable yardstick.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm starting to think I might be upsetting you?

It's worse than that, you are boring me. Taking the converation in a tedious circle while you fail to understand that the difference between opinion and fact is one of type not quantity is not how I intend to spend my time.

PS. I just read the important bit of your OP. I'll have a look at Ch2 and Ch3 lateron

You previously claimed to have already done this with the line ..
"I've read through your 1,2,3 and have some opinions that you may or may not accept as part of the ""great work" - whether you feel what I have to say is of worth is moot."
... You have shown little comprehension of anything you've read so far, I don't know if it will make any difference.

Obviously I knew you were lying about reading them though. 2 and 3 both start with a quick reminder of what BDM means.

I was plastered..remember? (cos I don't remember reading 2 n 3) So I'm not lying, it's not part of my character...occasionally getting shit-faced is.

But you also wrote you drink "rarely any booze now - clear headed, sharp as a tack" so I suppose it's good that you are owning up now to your substance misuse problems, but your continuous lies about whether you are a drunkard or whether you are reading stuff all just makes you look bad.

PPS. Did I at least educate you, that subjective morality has a measurable yardstick?

No, your argument is beneath stupid, but I don't care, it has recieved all the time that it is going to get from me. I gave you a list of relevant threads to waste somebody else's time in with that junk. Immanuel Can would be perfectly capable of dealing with that argument.

Ad Hominem me ol' mucker!

You have no valid argument against my statement: that subjective morality has a measurable yardstick.

I've dealt with this. You are waste of my time.

[attofishpi]

No, your argument is beneath stupid, but I don't care, it has recieved all the time that it is going to get from me. I gave you a list of relevant threads to waste somebody else's time in with that junk. Immanuel Can would be perfectly capable of dealing with that argument.

Ad Hominem me ol' mucker!

You have no valid argument against my statement: that subjective morality has a measurable yardstick.

I've dealt with this. You are waste of my time.

So you consider failing at something as dealing with something?