Does this image basically prove that cultural/moral/ethical relativism

>>3291811
No, because unless you're very uncreative you can come up with better ways to approach objective reality. "You can't know nuffin" pseuds never seem to understand it's not an all or nothing thing how subjective your knowledge is. If you base your knowledge solely on anecdote and personal feelings, then you're being pretty subjective and have a good chance of landing on unrealistic conclusions. If you make more of an effort to check across different independent sources of information on a topic and come up with objective standards for what you'll count as significant or not in advance and let the data fall where it will, then you'll be less likely to fall victim to shortcomings of your own personal perception.

>dude everything in life can be likened to the shape of the number of the numbers six or nine.

>>3291811
No. The real issue instead is when a cultural/moral/ethical relativist position is masquerading as reality and treating all other views as unrealistic, irrational, or evil.

File: FB_IMG_1483724648349.jpg (115KB, 1191x1380px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1191x1380px

>>3291811

>>3292057
Could've been an art project where the artist intended for it to be recognizable as both. Or something completely different.

Also,
>facebook

Fuck this board. Seriously.

>>3292057
>needing to define something by relating it to something else that already has a definition

>>3292057
>they just want to be right
Yeah, that's naive objectivism, alright.

>>3291811
Analogies are shit

>>3291858
>Dude I'm autistic

>6 is 6 cause 7 ate 9
>/pol/ logic

File: Political Cartoon #2.jpg (50KB, 668x521px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 668x521px

A better example would probably be to use words that have different meanings in different languages (e.g. 'No' in English and 'Noh' (Theatre) in Japanese)

However this analogy ultimately falls short in that it requires reference to symbolic signs to make its point - but this is largely irrelevant. The relevance lies in whether or not what these symbols purport is accurate, or self-consistent.

Does it matter if we write 'III + IV = VII' or '3 + 4 = 7'? It is whether or not subjective terms accurately depict objective truths that matters.

>>3292394
i get the point the image you posted, but objectively the answer is 8 because that is how mathematics functions

in OP's analogy, really the people should be asking "is this 6?" or "is this 9?" instead of proclaiming what they believe it to be

>>3292402
The image I posted is only vaguely linked to the argument that I laid out, I just thought that it would suit the general case that I made.

This is not to say that I don't agree with your comments, to be clear.

Yes, I agree that analogy also has the flaw you make light of - both are too eager, and too arrogant.

Whoops, the last line of the post above this one should have been culled.

>>3291858
>you can draw pretty much everything using penis shapes

Think more about what it means to prove something

>>3291811
No it doesn't, it's a stupid fucking picture. Still, there are no objective standards for culture, morality and ethics.

>>3291811
But what if it was any other digit than 9 or 6?

>>3291811
Nope. Here is my "九".

>>3293285
Is it is a 1 or an l? is it a 2 or an 5? is it a 3, an M, or a W? Is it a 4 or an h? Is it a 5 or an S? Is it a 7 or an L? Is it an 8 or a B?

>>3291811
How about you find me a modern country who doesn't consider murder in daily life as crime first? (In the context of usual peacetime, excluding wartime)

>>3293305
societies that condone murder end up destroying themselves. just because the surviving countries don't condone murder in daily life that doesn't mean it has never happened. it just happens to be more practical to not condone it. It's natural selection on a societal scale.

>>3293326
>societies that condone murder end up destroying themselves
>It's natural selection on a societal scale
And which explains why there really are some objective universal standards in human world.

>hey dude islamic fundamentalism is just as okay a system as western democratic liberalism lol!

>>3293346
this thread is about standards of morality, societies surviving if they don't condone murder isn't a standard of morality

>>3293353
>societies surviving if they don't condone murder isn't a standard of morality
It is. Why do you think most people consider murder is immoral in the first place? You first have morality standard, then make them into laws.

>>3293363
you're not understanding what I'm saying. of course people themselves may have their own moral standard of "murder in daily life is bad" and they will put that into law. but that doesn't mean that is an objective universal standard of morality. its just a coincidence that not murdering in daily life happens to be something that is practical for a society to believe in so the societies that believe in it survive better than the ones that don't. just because they survive better than the ones that don't doesn't mean it is an objective moral standard.

>>3293375
Yes, I totally understand what you're saying.
But condemn murder is still an universal moral standard which is commonly accepted and upheld by human societies worldwide.

>>3293375
Even human rights are considered to be moral standard by many people today. But you think there is no objective moral standard....kek

>>3293383
you wouldn't have repeated that line if you understood what I was saying. It is only seen across current surviving societies because the ones that didn't believe it died out. you're calling it "a universal moral standard" only because those that didn't believe died out. it's not actually even a universally seen thing today because there are still many individuals who don't believe in that currently.

>>3293388
not sure what your post is trying to accomplish. all you're saying "many people believe x... yet you're saying y!" what is your point?

>>3293391
Say what you want, but condemn murder is still an universal objective moral standard in human world. Sorry pal.

If people don't uphold it, then people will die, finished, destroyed. You said it yourself. It's objective truth, not relative truth.

>>3293403
I'm starting to doubt your ability to differentiate the concepts of practical and moral

>>3292239
Scott pls go

In what sense? Cultures aren't "evil" or "bad", if that's your point, they develop in response to something, but some cultures are more conductive to an overall happier, sustainable and productive society.

>>3293406
>ability to differentiate the concepts of practical and moral
Yeah, I also have such doubt to you.

Maybe I can just "murder" you to shut you up since murder can also be right(in peacetime context of course) since it''s all "relative" and more "practical", yes?

>>3293426
do what you want, you gave up trying to have a meaningful conversation long ago so I don't care what you do

>>3293406
>practical and moral
These things don't necessarily negate each others. It's obviously you need to clear your thoughts first.

>>3293418
This. Theoretically all cultures are equal but we live in a material world where certain cultures simply perform better than others.

>>3293431
Yes, I have meaningful conversation, which is "condemn murder is universal objective moral standard for humans". And you still can't refute it no mater how hard you try.

>>3293442
Is abortion murder?