Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:33 am Not relevant.
There are fewer internet hits for FSK than even appear in this Forum.
You are a joke.

I just Googled "Sculptor".

The word has already been taken and none of the references are about you - you are confusing people with your ambiguous terminology and you should probably find a new term/phrase.

I found something that's available and fairly suitable...

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:31 am
Is that all?
There are more entries on this Forum; that is how bullshit it is.

Not only stupid, but also blind.

Those are the search result for this forum, you dumb fucking cunt.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 12:30 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:31 am
Is that all?
There are more entries on this Forum; that is how bullshit it is.

Not only stupid, but also blind.

Those are the search result for this forum, you dumb fucking cunt.

You should get a Motel room with VA.
Explore each other's FSKs.
It might stop you shitting on the Forum for a few days.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:32 pm You should get a Motel room with VA.
Explore each other's FSKs.
It might stop you shitting on the Forum for a few days.

If you didn't like being shat on you would've removed your head from your ass by now.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:41 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:32 pm You should get a Motel room with VA.
Explore each other's FSKs.
It might stop you shitting on the Forum for a few days.

If you didn't like being shat on you would've removed your head from your ass by now.

Did you think of that or was the VA when you were up his arse?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 5:30 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:41 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:32 pm You should get a Motel room with VA.
Explore each other's FSKs.
It might stop you shitting on the Forum for a few days.

If you didn't like being shat on you would've removed your head from your ass by now.

Did you think of that or was the VA when you were up his arse?

I didn't even have to think. I just observed your head up your ass.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:04 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 5:30 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:41 pm
If you didn't like being shat on you would've removed your head from your ass by now.

Did you think of that or was the VA when you were up his arse?

I didn't even have to think. I just observed your head up your ass.

How did you manage to do that with VAs cock in your mouth. Amazing

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:05 pm How did you manage to do that with VAs cock in your mouth. Amazing

Damn. The hypoxia hallucinations/dellusions are kicking in.

Get your head out your ass already and get some oxygen!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:08 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:05 pm How did you manage to do that with VAs cock in your mouth. Amazing

Damn. The hypoxia hallucinations/dellusions are kicking in.

I'm sorry to hear about your distress.
remember to take an oximeter with you.
Maybe VA could supply some SCUBA (spot acroyn)gear next time you are up his cavernous arse.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:14 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:08 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:05 pm How did you manage to do that with VAs cock in your mouth. Amazing

Damn. The hypoxia hallucinations/dellusions are kicking in.

I'm sorry to hear about your distress.
remember to take an oximeter with you.
Maybe VA could supply some SCUBA (spot acroyn)gear next time you are up his cavernous arse.

Shame, are you struggling with controlling the narrative there?

It's much easier if you remove your cranium from your rectum.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:31 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:12 am When moral realists and objectivists fess up to their peculiar and disturbing fascination with torturing babies for fun - and VA makes it even more exciting by adding the condition 'to death' - you know they've lost the argument.

For the record, I think it morally wrong to torture anyone, to any extent, for any reason - and that includes for the gratification of a masochist.

If YOU believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" [and you don't have grounds for it] then you leave room for other humans to believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" even for pleasure.
In this case, you are complicit to the tortures of humans by humans.

1 Pointing out the downside of there being no moral facts - of morality being subjective - does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts. That's a fallacious argument from undesirable consequences.

2 The claim that moral subjectivists have no grounds for their moral opinions is false. For example, I have carefully thought-out reasons for thinking that torturing anyone for any reason is morally wrong. The difference is that I rest my opinion on moral principles, rather than pretending that there are moral facts. Moral objectivism is egotism in action - a profoundly subjective phenomenon: 'there are moral facts, and I know what they are'.

3 People have radically different opinions on important moral issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, gender identity - and, as it happens, the use of torture in some circumstances. To understand and accept that people differ is not to endorse the actions of those we disagree with. That's a grotesque and offensive idea.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:10 pm The difference is that I rest my opinion on moral principles

Really? What makes your principles "moral"?

What if you are mistaken about the "morality" of your principles and that you are in fact holding onto immoral principles?

What if torturing people is perfectly moral, but your principles are wrong?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:10 pm That's a grotesque and offensive idea.

Apparently not as offensive; or as grotesque as rejecting the objective wrongness of murder.

It sure sounds like endorsing murder to me.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:32 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 12:30 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:31 am
Is that all?
There are more entries on this Forum; that is how bullshit it is.

Not only stupid, but also blind.

Those are the search result for this forum, you dumb fucking cunt.

You should get a Motel room with VA.
Explore each other's FSKs.
It might stop you shitting on the Forum for a few days.

This only prove you are intellectually incompetent, a coward and deranged.
That is what you ALWAYS initiates when running out of arguments.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:31 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:12 am When moral realists and objectivists fess up to their peculiar and disturbing fascination with torturing babies for fun - and VA makes it even more exciting by adding the condition 'to death' - you know they've lost the argument.

For the record, I think it morally wrong to torture anyone, to any extent, for any reason - and that includes for the gratification of a masochist.

If YOU believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" [and you don't have grounds for it] then you leave room for other humans to believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" even for pleasure.
In this case, you are complicit to the tortures of humans by humans.

1 Pointing out the downside of there being no moral facts - of morality being subjective - does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts. That's a fallacious argument from undesirable consequences.

Strawman and irrelevant to the points raised by me so far.
As I had explained a 'million' times,
Whatever I claimed as a fact must be conditioned to a specific FSK, for example scientific facts. My moral fact as conditioned to a moral FSK is equivalent to a scientific fact.

2 The claim that moral subjectivists have no grounds for their moral opinions is false. For example, I have carefully thought-out reasons for thinking that torturing anyone for any reason is morally wrong. The difference is that I rest my opinion on moral principles, rather than pretending that there are moral facts. Moral objectivism is egotism in action - a profoundly subjective phenomenon: 'there are moral facts, and I know what they are'.

Btw, what is your definition of morality?

• Opinion:
  -a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. google
  -belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
  -a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

In your case, the grounding of your moral opinions are based on your personal FSK which is obviously subjective.
Regardless that you claim yours are moral 'principles' they remained merely your personal thoughts, beliefs and judgments.

As I had argued, your position of holding on to moral opinions means that others will have opinions that are contrary to yours, i.e. 'it is morally right to torture humans'.
In that case your moral position leaves room for other humans to opine it is morally right to torture humans.
If 100 million of humans are tortured in various forms and degrees, it meant that this will continue and increase with increase in human population and as long as there are humans.

On the other hand, I argued there are verified and justified objective moral facts conditioned /grounded upon a moral FSK, i.e. in this case the 'ought-not-ness to torture humans'.
With this justified and grounded moral fact, human can use it as a guide /vision to strive* for ZERO human tortured and the reality will be a continual reducing trend of humans tortured on an annual basis.

*'Strive' means influencing to tuning and developing the related real neural correlates within the brain as a moral skill [competence] such that the individual[s] are naturally indifferent to torturing humans.

3 People have radically different opinions on important moral issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, gender identity - and, as it happens, the use of torture in some circumstances. To understand and accept that people differ is not to endorse the actions of those we disagree with. That's a grotesque and offensive idea.

By definition, of course you would not endorse what is contrary to your mere opinions but your moral position in principle implied those in opposition are entitled to their opinions.
On that basis, your position, opinion and moral principle will enable /sustain the number of humans tortured at the current levels [appx. 100 million tortured in various forms is a possibility] and that number will increase correspondingly with increase in total human population.

Your moral opinion is ultimately and in reality, a grotesque and offensive idea.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 4:10 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:32 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 12:30 pm
Not only stupid, but also blind.

Those are the search result for this forum, you dumb fucking cunt.

You should get a Motel room with VA.
Explore each other's FSKs.
It might stop you shitting on the Forum for a few days.

This only prove you are intellectually incompetent, a coward and deranged.
That is what you ALWAYS initiates when running out of arguments.

Tell that to your alter-ego skepdick