>"Objective morality exists, for example murder is wrong"

>>3369021
God made it law, is that good enough for you?

>>3369021
>only humans can understand the concept of morality
>humans can't factor human experience when talking about morality

Let's talk about math, but let's use only nouns that describe colors.

>>3369021
>Why do people act like this makes sense?
Then what makes sense to you?

>>3369037
I don't understand what you mean.

>>3369046
Big surprise

>>3369062
Why would not wanting to get murdered mean it's wrong?

>>3369021
switch it around
>murder is wrong
>why?
>would you really kill someone even if there was no consequence?
unless you are being edgy or a psychopath the answer is most likely no

>>3369066
Not him, but by saying "I don't eant to get murdered" you are showing to your interlocutor your deepest and most intense istinct you've got as a human being, which is common to virtually everyone else (and those few exceptions are usually due to trauma or mental illness).
But yeah, let's forget that.

>>3369068
>>would you really kill someone even if there was no consequence?
Can I proft from it?

File: db0.png (77KB, 200x186px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 200x186px

>>3369021
>Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
>Why
>Because if you don't work with me , I will tie you up, rape you in front of your mother, then behead you to the tune of my favorite nasheed. Do you want that?
Makes sense to me.

>>3369086
Well, most people suffer from post traumatic stress after witnessing or committing murder, so no you really can't profit from it unless you have a severe lack of empathy.

>>3369021
murder is wrong by definition
it's called deductive logic
also you're an idiot

>>3369103
How much is PTSD worth? I'd take 500k with it.

>>3369103
>most people suffer from post traumatic stress after witnessing or committing murder
What's your source for "most" people?

>>3369111
>How much does it cost
Most of your soul.

>>3369113
Studies done on soldiers, basic understanding of anti-social personality disorder.

>>3369115

Where is that? I'd trade it in a heartbeat, but I can't find it.

>>3369073
Everything that lives doesn't want to get murdered this doesn't mean that they wouldn't murder something themselves.

Again with this shitty thread? Fuck off, psychopath.

>>3369121
Also we shouldn't be using the word murder. We should be using the word kill

>>3369068
>if you don't agree with popular morality you're mentally ill
This seems like a cop out.
>>3369106
>murder is wrong by definition
That's not very convincing.

Kant's categorical imperative already argued excellently that objective morality is real and that it's a logical conclusion, not based on appeals to God or subjective opinion.
Objective morality is the logical position. Thinking that morality is subjective is the emotional position
>wah wah everyone's opinions are equal morality is a social cultural construct you bigot wah wah

>>3369130
you obviously don't know what "by definition" means
try learning something before you speak anime sperg lord

>>3369131
>>wah wah everyone's opinions are equal morality is a social cultural construct you bigot wah wah
Nobody said this.

>>3369120
If you don't believe in anything,mlosing your souls means being tormented by guilt, being unable to sleep (and when you can oh boy, enjoy those nightmares) and a great deal of psychotic events. It fucks you up.
Also

>>3369111
I'm pretty sure that at this price you would have to kill a president, or someone as relevant as him.

>>3369130
These behaviours show up way before your first mature thought about morality. I can assure you that the most problematic and cold-hearted individuals you can find showed those signs in their infancy.

t. Have worked in prisons (therapist assistant)

>>3369021

It's wrong even on a practical sense.
Would you rather live in a society were murder is O.K. for whatever reason people can make up in their minds or one were its frowned upon and therefore less likely to happen?

Ants own part of their success to the fact that they dont have to fight among themselves, only external threats.

>>3369131
an excellent argument doesn't mean its true
Kant's argument has problems in that it repeats itself
while i also agree with Kant his moral system falls short in certain cases
I don't disagree with your point but i do with how you presented it

>>3369146
Why would killing someone torment you and make you unable to sleep?
Maybe for highly empathic people.

>>3369131
What incentive is there to follow Kant's morality versus any other morality constructed logically?
Why is his the correct one?

>>3369156
>Why would killing someone torment you and make you unable to sleep?
Almost everyone is programmed this way, and in very few situations one has enough occasions to get used to it. War is one of those situations, and even then more often than not it's extremely taxing on the soldiers' psyche.

>Maybe for highly empathic people.
You don't know from the start if you can handle it. It's a coin toss, and if it fails you're going to live a Hell-ish life.

>>3369146

Humans have killed each other for thousands of years, just now they get PTSD from it? It used to be considered sport.

>>3369176
What evidence do you have for this?

>>3369145
Nobody said it in this thread, I'm just strawmanning my opposition before they can counterargue. it's the gist of the "morality is subjective" argument. "Everyone has different views so who's to say? How can you prove one view is wrong and another right for something like that? All cultures and times have had different views and religions have different views so how can you say one is right?" Well just understand the categorical imperative and you got it. Morality was solved 200 years ago.

I can even disprove moral relativism with a proof by induction: assume moral relativism is true. Well, that is itself an objective statement - the objective morality is that all morality is subjective. This however is a contradiction, and thus moral relativism can not be true. Therefor, some form of objective morality is true.
Note that that proof does not say which moral code is true, just that there must be some moral code that is true that is not relativism.

>>3369176
I believe it's estimated around 1% of people are psychopaths and if empathy is a spectrum there's going to be a fair bit more who would be relatively unfazed by taking a life.
At the very least I doubt everyone would be waking up in cold sweats racked with guilt for years.

>>3369177

People used to buy tickets to watch executions. Ancient people were all psychopats.

>>3369193
So you would tell the murderer the truth?

>>3369206

Or is everyone a pussy today? What's more likely?

>>3369210
The pussies are just more outspoken.

>>3369185
As I've said, I've worked for 12 years now in some pretty fucked up Southern Italian prisons. Take it with a grain of salt, it's all anecdotal.

>>3369198
I wouldn't say that this applies to everyone, but I would still say that it applies to too many people for you to take this risk. To some of the people I've met this applied for way less extreme crimes, such as beatings and robbing.

>>3369206
Killing someone and watching someone die are completely different things that are processed phisiologicalky and psychologically in extremely different manners. Think about the difference between throwing a real punch (which is something that stays in your experience for a few days) and watching a boxing match.

>>3369177
Humans have started diagnosing PTSD in soldiers fairly recently, the bulk of the first reaearches come from WWI, and through that bulk we arrived to the contemporary notion of this mental illness.
It's like asking if we're turning autistic: no, people just didn't diagnose it in the past.

>>3369156
Moral conscience you psychopath, normal guys must mentally dehumanize someone to callously murder them where as soulless monsters like you can kill someone while staring at paint.

>>3369215

I disagree, man existed just fine without the labels of mental illness. They have become excuses for being mental wrecks.

>>3369215
I feel like most of the stress would be from fear of getting caught and punished.

>>3369220
Again, you can spot a sociopath when he is 3 or 4, in special cases even when he is 2. It goes far beyond the ideas someone matures in his lifetime: these tendencies are often programmed into your behaviour from your first infancy.

>>3369226
Then war-related PTSD would not be present in soldiers who knew that they were fighting a just war (for example French soldiers defending Paris from the Germans dueing WWI).
From what I've seen, the simple act of experiencing the act of killing from your point od view is enough to fuck up with most people brains, and for most people getting used to it is simply impossible.

>>3369220
Psychopaths are cancer they ruin order in society, the concept of law was made by human civilizations to deal with these pieces of shit.

>>3369021
*murders you

>>3369233
There's far more stressors present in war than simply the act of killing.

>>3369233
>Again, you can spot a sociopath when he is 3 or 4, in special cases even when he is 2
What evidence do you have for this?

>>3369241
Then why did Axis soldiers who were involved with the execution of prisoners/undesirables experience PTSD? They weren't in any danger and believed themselves to be morally justified in their actions

>>3369241
You can get PTSD from a brawl, someone stabbing you, by watching a beloved one die, etc., war is just the context in which research started.

>>3369243
Just conversations with the therapists I've worked with. I'm going to work in 1 hour, so I might ask them some sources on it later on and post them here.

>>3369252
Because they knew they were going to get caught and tried for war crimes.
Whenever they find one of those old concentration camp guards who snuck away they seem to be doing fine.

>>3369253

I would appreciate that

>>3369235

Why is order to be desired?

>>3369259
>Because they knew they were going to get caught and tried for war crimes.
We are talking about the very first days of the war. Executions in Poland were already an hassle.

>>3369037
he's talking about objective morality though
that's where the other guy made a mistake

the only objective morality is perfect judgement at the hands of God

>>3369100
kek

I really don't understand this shit either. For an entirely different reason though.

Almost no one except weird pacifists thinks killing in self defense or in wartime is wrong. 'Murder' is just illegal killing. Why do people act like the state and it's laws are somehow infallible? Like, yeah, I get that I'm weird in thinking all authority is by definition illegitimate, but does almost everyone else assume law is /that fucking great/?

>>3369220
>disagreeing with someone who's job it is to know and deal with this because you wan't to be a killah so bad

fuck off

>>3369235
psychopaths are actually desired if they can keep their urges in because they make the best CEO's/executives

File: 1476836294805.png (30KB, 221x228px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 221x228px

>>3369286
>psychology

>>3369124
This,its like we're seeing this thread every week now.
Its basically that everyone agrees to not do a thing you wouldn't want to happen to yourself, so badically a social contract to keep an evil away from society.

>>3369294
what are you, a STEM fag? fuck off
people who imply psychology isn't a real science are fucking brainlets jesus christ

>>3369286

>giving in to spooks

Not an argument

>>3369302
how's this for an argument:
you have no fucking incentive to hurt another human being therefor you musn't, if you try, you will get ass raped since the majority will support that person

i get the feeling you're kinda primalistic so i'll put it this way

humans have tried and refined the art of putting wild dogs and dangerous animals down so if you resemble their behaviour, they'll take you down aswell

right of the strongest

>>3369302
Oh nice we have another edgy autist here.

>>3369301
>j-just ignore the replication crisis

>>3369311
>you have no fucking incentive to hurt another human being
Profit, pleasure, curiosity, etc.
> if you try, you will get ass raped since the majority will support that person
"my morality is objective because if you don't do what I say we'll kill you"
bravo

>>3369315
one incident means the whole branch of science is all goofs and gafs? nice logic

>not seeing how this is a very new branch of science

>>3369317
i never said it was objective
but it might aswell be, because if you disagree and go hogwild ... we'll kill you

>>3369021
If you value your own life it follows you should value other lives, unless you'd like to explain why you're a special snowflake.

>>3369317
anyways i'm off to school
got a test about animal behaviour

imprinting and stuff.

>>3369320
>field wide failure of studies
>one incident

>>3369323
So slavery was moral?

>>3369335
morality is subjective, and no it wasn't because the majority of slaves was against it along with north america

if it was moral britain wouldnt have abolished it

>>3369317
If youre a dangerous outlier in society you have to get fixed or removed I don't see how this is illogical.

>>3369342
>So capitalism was moral?
>"morality is subjective, and no it wasn't because the majority of wage slaves were against it along with the pan African union
>"if it was moral the Federated States of Europe wouldnt have abolished it"

>>3369289
1. Your definition of best is dependent on the maximizing of shareholder value as being the main goal. Having a sociopath in charge will not be particularly beneficial to most stakeholders of a company, whether they be lower level employees or the local community
2. For every sociopath who goes on to become a CEO there are roughly 6 who go on to become convicted criminals. I don't think 'enhanced' corporate performance makes this a worthwhile ratio for society (t. jon ronson)

>>3369366
>For every sociopath who goes on to become a CEO there are roughly 6 who go on to become convicted criminals
Source: your ass.

>>3369375
the proportion of CEOs to convicted criminals is far less than 1/6 in general, why do you believe it is much different for sociopaths

is this something you really need to pour over statistics to prove

>>3369403
So you admit to making up the number 6?

>>3369068
Just because I personally wouldn't do something doesn't make it wrong.

>>3369328
>If you value your own life it follows you should value other lives
No, it doesn't.

>unless you'd like to explain why you're a special snowflake.
Nothing special about me, I also expect others to value their own lives more than mine.

>>3369418
not >>3369366, just saying

Google says 1800 CEOs and over 8 million criminals in jail/prison/parole (not including those who served their time), so there are at least 4444 (8000000/1800) criminals per CEO in the general population.

If the proportion among sociopaths is at least 6, this would mean it is a whopping 741 times smaller which can't possibly true.

I don't know where >>3369366 got the 6 figure from. Getting back to the point, there certainly are many more sociopath criminals than sociopath CEOs.

>>3369463
Perhaps he should have said that instead of making up an obviously fictional figure.
Besides the fact that sociopaths can be more than just CEO or criminal.

>>3369463
>there certainly are many more sociopath criminals than sociopath CEOs.

In absolute terms sure but as a proportion, maybe not. Around half of all criminals are sociopathic, I'd be surprised if the proportion of sociopath CEOs was lower than that.

>>3369354
>implying capitalists have morals
if they even have some they have few. you can not have morals

>>3369036
Even if any god were real, no, that wouldn't be enough.

>>3369270
Which means there's no objective morality.

>>3369068
>would you really kill someone even if there was no consequence?
I would if I thought they deserved it.

I doubt I'd ever kill someone for money even if I was assured that there were no consequences, but there's quite a list of people (mostly politicians from many different countries) I would be more than happy to torture to death if given the opportunity.

ITT: op wants to look like a cold hearted badass

Killing isn't objectively right or wrong, but it's not beneficial for weaklings like OP to live in a society indiffernet to killing

OP would be killed straight away

>>3369281
Go live in some lawless African shithole then if you think civilised people and laws aren't so great

Oh wait. You'd get your shit pushed in by dindus with AK's

>>3369625
>that wouldn't be enough.
If we are talking the Christian God here, isn't he literal truth, justice, and good incarnate? If he says it's wrong, would that make it objectively wrong?

>>3369793
Christians say yes, I say no.

Morality would still be subjective, we would just be using the subjective standards of one particular deity. Being "justice and good incarnate" when you define what justice and good means is little more than inflating your own ego and imposing your values on others (which, if the Christian god existed, he could very easily do because he's also omnipotent).

>>3369121
>Everything that lives doesn't want to get murdered

There are people who are murdering themselves

>>3369696
>Killing isn't objectively right or wrong
t. brainlet with no understanding of the law or war

>>3369625
>that means there's no objective morality
sheesh it's not like i've been saying that for the past 9,000 posts

>>3369625
also God is real you fucking dipshit

>>3369793
indeed.
God is neutral for he is too intelligent for ideology. his word is perfect judgement so it can't be debated.

since he's neutral and infinitely intelligent = perfect judgement = always objective truth

Stop making this fucking thread you retard

>>3369021
truth is, there is no good or evil. But it's invented to explain what is beneficial for society and what isn't, for dummies.

Only smart people realize that it's not good for them if murdering is accepted since it would put themselves at risk.

Jesus existed and was a smart one. God or not but he was a smart one.

>>3369625
>that wouldn't be enough.
then nothing will convince you short of torture. Words are wasted on those who reject God, your place will be in a cell into you repent

>>3370020
>convincing with torture
Yeah, you can fuck off with that medieval mindset.

Because you seem to have trouble comprehending what I've said, I'll make it simpler for you.

God deciding morality wouldn't be enough to make that morality objective. God revealing himself would be more than enough for me to believe he existed, because I'm not a hack who denies evidence like many Christians in the US.

But the Christian god doesn't exist, which is why there's no evidence of him to convince me that he does.

>>3370031
why dont you look at any murder scene and trial and tell me whether or not its justified then. Show me a convicted murderer who wasn't objectively (which means independent of the your own ideas or senses or empirical evidence) immoral (meaning a lack of acting in faith of God). If you are so free-minded, when God literally decides what is and isn't moral.

>>3370035
> immoral (meaning a lack of acting in faith of God).
That's not what immoral means. Your imaginary superior beings do not play any factor.

Murderers aren't convicted because what they did is "objectively immoral", they're convicted because there's a consensus that their actions are detrimental to society, and thus they should be removed.

>>3370049
What dictionary did you read that didn't teach you what immoral meant? it literally means that you dont act in accordance with the laws of gods
Then why are murderers pardoned?

>>3370051
> it literally means that you dont act in accordance with the laws of gods
No, it doesn't. Are you delusional? Morality is just a set of standards with which we can evaluate actions as positive ("good") or negative ("bad"). Immoral is something that goes against those same standards. No mythical mumbo jumbo is present, nor necessary, in the definition.

>Then why are murderers pardoned?
Because they're subjectively deemed to not be a threat anymore. What kind of question is that?

>>3370069
>>3370069
>Morality is just a set of standards with which we can evaluate actions as positive
you decide this on your own? because i feel like you just pulled this out of your ass. Morality doesn't change over time so your patently false
>they're subjectively deemed to not be a threat anymore
lol so you think the law figures people arent threats anymore after they've been convicted by your mob? if your world actually existed there would be no pardones because morality is subjective, meaning people can murder and punish as they please.

>>3370069
are you saying morals don't exist or are you saying you have a moral code where murder is ok

File: Tommy+Lee+Jones[1].jpg (45KB, 814x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 814x500px

>>3370035
>immoral (meaning a lack of acting in faith of God).
come on

>>3369021
Are people seriously using that line of reasoning?

>>3369036
That would only make it subjectively moral, ya dingus.

>>3369073
>No one actually wants to pay their taxes.
Thus not paying your taxes is objectively good.

>>3370109
>god's eternal word is subjective
are you aware that morality is as real and concrete as the laws of reality, mathematics, and arts?
>>3370104
are you illiterate or can you not afford an education?

>>3370077
>you decide this on your own?
The definition? I paraphrased it but you can look it up from any dictionary.

>Morality doesn't change over time so your patently false
But it does. Different cultures in different times have had different sets of values. This is why the Old Testament is so abhorrent, because our sets of values that inform our individual subjective moralities are too distant from those of Israelis in the Bronze Age.

>so you think the law figures people arent threats anymore after they've been convicted by your mob?
What the hell are you even talking about?

Pardons happen because the people given the authority to give pardons subjectively decide that the person being pardoned qualifies for a pardon under the subjective guidelines the law has established.

>if your world actually existed there would be no pardones because morality is subjective, meaning people can murder and punish as they please.
Jesus fuck, are you on drugs or something? How does any of these propositions follow the other? How does [morality being subjective] imply that [pardons don't exist], and how does any of that mean that [people can murder as they please]? Connect your fucking ideas so that you can try to begin making sense.

>>3370079
Neither. I don't know how you get any of that from my post. Maybe try reading it again.

>>3370121
>are you aware that morality is as real and concrete as the laws of reality, mathematics, and arts?
>are you illiterate or can you not afford an education?

I gotta hand it to you. I went through a back and forth with you for a few posts before realizing you were shitposting.

>>3370134
your whole world is based off of non-existant events, definitions of words ("I parapharsed"), and the fact taht you think groups of people with no respect for morality (literally a mobocracy, which historically murder people in scores) decide who should and shouldn't be punished while you sidestep one of my actual arguments for why morality is objective by denying the facts of this world. From God not existing, to beileving in retardation like the bronze age and the bible. You claimed that "people" decide subjectively, which is literally a mobocracy, in which there can be no pardons because the mob does not pardon. Just look at rosseuo and teh french reolvutionaries who cut the heads off of every person they found. OR the USSR in its later days which saw morality as subjective as you do, the end result was enslavement and torturing people until they confessed to crimes they didn't commit. All the while thosep eople starved to death until they undid the damage to their souls, as demanded by God's law and morality.

>>3370145
would you consider your retarded reaction-images and non-existant arguments, shitposting as well? Or do you project this much in complete ignorance?

>>3370157
>reaction-images and non-existant arguments
Never posted anything of the sort.

>>3370153
That's one big nice strawman if I ever saw one. In case that you aren't shitposting and are actually serious, I must say that I'm very sorry that you were born with such a malfunctioning brain.

"Paraphrasing" is not making things up. "Subjective morality" does not equal lord of the flies. Denying that the Christian god exists is not "denying facts". The Bronze Age existed, and that's when most of the Old Testament was written in case you didn't know.

Acknowledging that all morality is subjective does not take away anything from the institutions we have created to keep our societies civil. In fact, it reinforces said institutions because we begin to understand that they're created by people in the same way our buildings are, and as such, they're completely dependent on our maintenance.

But you're retarded, so you won't get any of what I'm saying. Sorry.

>>3370205
You like denying reality, but you're obviously incapable of any rational argument other than sweety posting. Subjective morality is literally impiety, Socrates wrote extensively on this topic whereas your stupid ass makes shit up and tell others to go fact-check for him.

>>3370212
>you're obviously incapable of any rational argument
That's rich coming from you. Everything you've done to "debunk" my arguments has been an appeal to your imaginary superior being and attacking straw-men about the "consequences" of morality not being objective. You're the biggest hypocrite on this board.

And I never told you to go fact check. You asked me where I got my definition for "morality" and I answered. Meanwhile, you completely made up your definition, yet I let it slide because I know you're special. bfy .tw/DsUL

>>3370258
>immorality
>the state or quality of being immoral; wickedness.
"he believed his father had been punished by God for his immorality"
>morality
>principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
your own defintion literally states a distinction between right and wrong. This distinction is made by law, by God, then next started quoting marxist dogma so your whole source is literally tainted with the same godless filth your ignorant rantings come from. OR do you doubt the fact that without the use of miracles that objective reality exists in the form of mathematical formulas, laws of nature, and laws of art?

>>3370284
>your own defintion literally states a distinction between right and wrong.
Yes.

>This distinction is made by law
You got it backwards. Law comes from the consensus of our subjective moralities. This is why we have to argue so much about legislation.

>by God
No.

> then next started quoting marxist dogma
What the hell are you even talking about.

>OR do you doubt the fact that without the use of miracles that objective reality exists in the form of mathematical formulas, laws of nature, and laws of art?
This sentence makes no sense. But in any case: Laws of art don't exist, mathematical formulas and "laws of nature" are just representations of what we've been able to observe in the world.

Coulomb's Law is not something that physically exists in the universe, it is an accurate and practical explanation of how electrically charged particles interact.

This is an unrelated tangent, though.

>Why do people act like this makes sense?

because morality is generally held to be universal. something being wrong means it applies equally to both you and me.

a 'morality for you' and a 'morality for me' to most normies is just a contradiction (even though a lot of them also advocate relativism) to a lot of people.

"would you want me to kill you"

is just a way to try and convince you WHY it's *universally* wrong. People shouldn't kill you because you wouldn't want that, so, universalizing that, you ought not do it to others.

Makes no sense but that's normies for ya.


Personally I just take myself and my own opions to be the source of objective moral facts

>>3369193
No one calls themselves a moral relativist, dumbass. Your enthymeme assumes that moral relativism is a framework commensurate to something like the categorical imperative, it isn't.

File: tips.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

>>3370673
>enthymeme

>>3370307
>Laws of art don't exist
No wonder you cant grasp concepts kindergartners can, then. Do you enjoy looking like an idiot? Because you've been shitposting about your refusal to learn for the past couple of hours.

>>3369193
>I can even disprove moral relativism with a proof by induction: assume moral relativism is true. Well, that is itself an objective statement - the objective morality is that all morality is subjective. This however is a contradiction, and thus moral relativism can not be true. Therefor, some form of objective morality is true.
That's just a word game.
I could say that people who say "there's no objective morality" mean "there's no objective first-order morality", and that would be a second-order moral statement. But anyway we would still be only playing with words.

File: this thread again.jpg (39KB, 460x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 460x500px

>>3369021
How many fucking times are you going to make this same stupid shitty thread?

>>3369824
Okay, so I see you have a nice TV. I'm going to kill you and take it, and I say it isn't wrong, yeah? Am I following your logic correctly?
You're just another one of those atheist faggots who think morality is subjective because you have no faith. Most good morals were brought about by the Catholics and their commandments. Even if you disagree with religion, you'd be fucking autistic to say they weren't good laws to uphold. Quit pretending you're above the world because you think there isn't fairies in the sky.

>>3371413
>Okay, so I see you have a nice TV. I'm going to kill you and take it, and I say it isn't wrong, yeah? Am I following your logic correctly?
I'm not him, but if you're going to do it anyway, what does it matter if it is or isn't "wrong"? What would change?
>I see you have a nice TV. I'm going to kill you and take it, and you say it is wrong, and I say "whatever"

File: 150515231856.jpg (13KB, 295x171px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 295x171px

>>3371389
>How many fucking times are you going to make this same stupid shitty thread?
Until people stop eating the bait

File: 1504235928889.jpg (146KB, 613x640px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 613x640px

>>3369106
not an argument

What's with all the chrust cucks?

>>3372332
No. The question is why there are so many positivist cucks here.

>>3369068
I also wouldn't eat vegetables if there was no health consequences, that doesn't mean eating vegetables is morally wrong.

>>3369068
>if there was no consequence
Anon I think I could go full Kira if that was the case

>>3369086
Even if the answer is yes the vast majority of people still won't do it.

>>3370905
You're just throwing random insults at this point.

Laws of art don't exist unless you're talking about legislation pertaining to artworks. There's a lot of theory regarding aesthetics, like color theory and the like, but unlike physics or chemistry or biology, the theory in this case isn't conformed by laws because there's no way to objectively quantify or qualify art.

>No wonder you cant grasp concepts kindergartners can, then. Do you enjoy looking like an idiot? Because you've been shitposting about your refusal to learn for the past couple of hours.
I can't shake the feeling that you're speaking with yourself at this point. It's too perfect.

>>3374578
They're accurate descriptions of your blind, stupid, shitposting idiocy. Who is literally spouting out buzzwords when there are no theories in art, only laws. Theres also no laws in biology which I bet your stupid ass loves because its as sceintficically sound as gender studies.

>>3371413
>Okay, so I see you have a nice TV. I'm going to kill you and take it, and I say it isn't wrong, yeah? Am I following your logic correctly?
You can say (and think, and genuinely believe) that it isn't wrong, yeah.

That's not going to stop people from locking you up in jail/executing you because you're a dangerous criminal that has broken the law, though.

You people always follow the same thought process. You always claim subjective morality means lawlessness and murder and mad max and lord of the flies, and then use god of the gaps to justify your own subjective morality.

Our morals aren't brought upon by the commandments, that's absolute horseshit. The commandments were created based on the morals of Bronze Age Israelis, which is why some of the commandments and most of Leviticus seem weird to us and require bullshit interpretations.

And I don't have a superiority complex to to being an atheist, you can stop projecting already. I'm merely defending my proposition that morality is subjective, because I've never found any half decent argument that goes against it.

>>3374588
You're so retarded that I won't reply to you anymore.

You don't know shit of what you're talking about, yet you insist that you're correct without even trying to justify your own positions.

You don't even know what theory means, you insist that something as subjective as art can have objective laws, and that biology does not have scientific ground (despite the fact that you don't know shit about science).

Look up the three laws of biology or the Hardy-Weinberg law to embarrass yourself a little. I know you probably won't be satisfied because you're apparently equating the theory of evolution to social justice bullshit, in which case just know that you're unsurprisingly confirmed to be an extremely stupid individual.

>>3374627
>something as subjective as art
art isnt subjective
> three laws of biology
all false and dont fit the criteria for a law, being that they are unbreakable and predominant. Plato himself stated that there are only forms when it comes to animals and plants and biology. And his ideas didn't lead to the national-socialist polices of eugenics and your country getting bombed into olbivion like Germany did.
> justify your own positions.
are you unaware that a picture is fact? and that the laws of science are treated the same that the greek gods and their fate were back in the day?

>>3374651
Not the guy you're responding to
>art isnt subjective
Care to explain why art is not subjective?

>>3369824
Stop reducing God you stupid child.

>>3374588
No science is sound, you stupid twat.

>>3374661
There is sound science, just the scientific method is unsound as is empirical evidence. Or do you deny the entire branch of etymology as well?

>>3374654
The laws and qualities that produce art are objectively proven and laid out for all to see by God. It's why anyone can look at any piece and know whether or not its art and understand its message.

>>3374676
>The laws and qualities that produce art are objectively proven and laid out for all to see by God
Can you mention some of these laws? Maybe in music and literature.

>>3374673
>etymology
Post disregarded

>>3374680
He won't because he's making this all up.

>>3374659
I see no reason to.

>>3374687
>i see no reason to
Because you're a heretic.

>>3374690
Well, yeah. But to you, so is everyone on Earth who doesn't follow your specific religious tradition, making that word meaningless as an insult.

>>3374680
the use of nature as the finest form of inspiration is required as teh fuel for art. Then you must expresse yourself upon the medium. The qualities of the art are expressed as forms that properly or improperly (in the writing of plato) express your message. The complexity of the moving parts of the piece are diced by your abilty think moves ahead. The amount of golden rectangles in the piece are decided by how charismatic you are. As for music there must be a melody inspired by music that has a repeating frequency or it is not music. The instruments must hit a note that does not include a sharp (#) as if it included one it would not be music.
>>3374686
>one of the sixteen branches of philosophy is disregarded
pack it up boys we won't be needing any computers, dams, or engineers anymore because anon doesn't like them
>>3374687
>im going to plug my ears and ignore everyone's advice so I can moon 4chan
your shitposting is more expressive than you are.

>>3374690
You're sinning in pride, my friend. You are pretending to know how the universe is ordered, and which laws God has bestowed upon us.
You are speculating on divine matters without being careful nor honest, which is a tremendous sin in every monotheistic religion.

>>3374705
>the use of nature as the finest form of inspiration is required as teh fuel for art. Then you must expresse yourself upon the medium. The qualities of the art are expressed as forms that properly or improperly (in the writing of plato) express your message. The complexity of the moving parts of the piece are diced by your abilty think moves ahead. The amount of golden rectangles in the piece are decided by how charismatic you are. As for music there must be a melody inspired by music that has a repeating frequency or it is not music. The instruments must hit a note that does not include a sharp (#) as if it included one it would not be music.
I'm pretty sure you're a schizo. Sad!

>>3374696
heretics get burned on crosses, genocided, made second class citizens, and openly cleansed in asian countries. I suggest you watch yourself before God punishes you more than he is.
>>3374706
not in judaism

File: image.jpg (92KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x536px

>>3374705
>he is still following Scholastic philosophy

>>3374708
take your pills

>>3374714
>not in judaism
I'm pretty sure that lying about your God is a sin in judaism too.

>>3374715
>im a whore whose main argument is looking like a clown that got fried like a chiken fillet
scholastic philosophy isn't what im arguing, just that plato was a better philophser than that hack darwin, who lead europe into socialism and conquest by muslims and bitches like you

>>3374706
>practicing theology is a sin of pride

Mystics please go.

>>3374720
Dont call a godly man a liar you piece of filth, God's will is as clear the starry king and obvious as elephant

>>3374725
>practicing cluelessly philosophy to feel superior to other believers is a sin of pride
FTFY

>>3374727
>Dont call a godly man a liar you piece of filth, God's will is as clear the starry king and obvious as elephant

>thinks that he is not sinning in pride
>defines himself as godly man

>>3374724
You've mentioned sharps, yet we know nothing about Greek tuning, which means that your prescription is downright useless. How do you reconcile this with the fact that you are pretending to have full access to universal truths?

Fucking heretics.

>>3374737
>im retarded and have never seen God or heard his words so everyone is as retarded as me!
keep your head in the sand like the coward you are, you'll be slaughtered like the rest of your blasphemous ilk. Just as the christians, and animists, and zoroastrians were for hundred of years.

>>3374759
>keep your head in the sand like the coward you are, you'll be slaughtered like the rest of your blasphemous ilk. Just as the christians, and animists, and zoroastrians were for hundred of years.

Sure thing, 4chan prophet.

>>3374737
>yet we know nothing about Greek tuning
have you never heard of a harp? or a chorus you faggot? their pieces are still in circulation, od you claim that none of us can read them when they literally lay out the entire process to producing, tuning, and playing their instruments? The greeks literally had a God who was devoted to music so they obviouslly had access to it, on top of that Jewish music predates greek music so they'd have learned it from them or came up with the same ideas.

>>3374764
Why do you think the trinity enslaved the balkanized Roman empire after cosntantine's christian succesors failed to beat him back before he cut off the production of finceioules?

>>3374767
We know nothing about 200 years old tunings, when it comes to Greek music we have just relationships between intervals. We don't know how wide are these gaps, we don't know which frequencies were they using, which by the way is how you find a sharp or a flat.
To say that if there's a sharp it's not music, and to justify this claim by saying that Plato said it is absolutely meaningless, for we don't know what was a sharp for Plato (nor we know what a sharp was for Palestrina).
The recordings of Greek music you've heard are mere speculation, literally no one knows how their music actually sounded.

>>3374774
Loaded question. Start by justifying this claim, which you take for granted:
>Why do you think the trinity enslaved the balkanized

>>3374714
>back to medieval shitposting
Every time, there has to be a Christian that masturbates to the thought of non-believers suffering for the sole reason of not believing in their fairy tale.

>>3374797
You're literally claming no-one can speak ancient greek. I'm telling you right now that many people can speak ancient greek including me. I've literally heard ancient greek music because they played drums and horns that I litsened to. Later on they were given simple string instruments which sounded nice along with abilty to sing. Or are you suggesting that the greeks didn't know what music was? Because you're literally just projecting

Hey, if you don't want to asnwer thats fine. But id perfer if youd; admit that your an idiot whose faith is in no position to critcize the true word of God and its chosen people. Whereas your Gods were strung up and murdered. Elohim has never been betrayed by any of his followers, unlike the chrsitian god who can't even predict the simplest of events, like his monsters and nephlim causing a lot of problems in the future. Or his churchs becoming corrupt and heretical. Eventually splitting off into literally thousands of individual creeds, whose only legitimacy is who has the most money.

>>3374834
im not a christian

>>3374841
A religious zealot, then.

>>3374843
that I am

>>3374724
1. Darwin was not a philosopher, he was a scientist.

2. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with socialism (or any other economic or political system).

3. Socialism has nothing to do with, and is directly opposed to, the capitalist forces that have driven the wave of immigration to Europe in the past few decades.

4. You aren't half as smart as you think you are.

>>3374838
>You're literally claming no-one can speak ancient greek
Hmmm.
>I've literally heard ancient greek music because they played drums and horns that I litsened to.

I haven't mentioned instruments, I have mentioned pitches. You've said that melodies based on sharps are not music, I've said that we don't know what a sharp sounded like in ancient greece.
If I say that we don't know what a C sharp sounded in Monteverdi's times (and we don't know that), am I claiming that no one knows how to read scores?
>Later on they were given simple string instruments which sounded nice along with abilty to sing. Or are you suggesting that the greeks didn't know what music was? Because you're literally just projecting

Still talking about instruments when the point was pitches and tunings? What's your point? That they had instruments? No shit.
Basic knowledge about the history of tunig is apparently enough to dismiss your "universal truths".

'You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.'

>>3374856
>1. Darwin was not a philosopher, he was a scientist.
he did not use any part of the scientific method to coem to his conclusions, what he did was observe an incomplete picture of a few islands. For that reason and because science falls under the tree of philophophy he is a philosopher.
>>3374856
>2. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with socialism (or any other economic or political system).
it lead to social darwinism which basically meant that murder is okay, as it is justified with the pretense of survival of the fittest. Even today, gang-bangers in atifa call for teh death of white people as just under the banner of survival of the fittest.
Revionist history and apologetics brought out them igrant crises, which are more forms of impiety that God punishes those people with.
Im smarter than any god or human, I know this because I killed my competition.

>>3374865
>Even today, gang-bangers in atifa call for teh death of white people as just under the banner of survival of the fittest.
kek

Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître Associate RAS[1] (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ]; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic Priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[2] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[3][4] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[5][6][7][8] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[9]

>>3374864
The only reason there is to work is to create a superior body adn forms of things. Menial labor like farming has always just served as a form of punishment by the Gods for being impious, were you pious the Gods would grant them food just for existing or by the machines and forms they made. This proven because people don't need to work, machines do all the work for them. Darwin's 1000 page diatrabe which you like quoting belongs in the gutter along with das kapital and the new testament save revelations
>>3374860
you're trying to disprove the existence of greek music by saying that we don't know what their definitinos of words were. Well, they had the other four forms of art which were compeltly translated into modern-day english, along with the two forms of performance art being acting and dancing. But you think that since we can't udnerstand their musical vocabulary? Whose words have not changed before teh dawn of man? Because you refuse to actually learn ancient greek? This is rich, music is literally the lowest of the five forms of art, so it would be the easiest to make! Though, until I take you back in time to meet Alexander the great (who literally hired muscians to play "MUSIC" for him) you wont beileve me. Well, I think you should just pray until God feels like giving your ignorant ass some free music lessons.

>>3374871
>he quotes wikipedia
just quote his own books you sophist, I don't want to bother reading your mobocratic, ass-lickign monolouges found on a bankrupt forum that tries to steal money from photgraphers

>>3374879
>you're trying to disprove the existence of greek music by saying that we don't know what their definitinos of words were.
I give up, you're too stupid ti reach even the most basic understanding of the sentences you are reading. I'll let other anons laugh at your lack of coherence.

>>3374881
Wikipedia's community has been described as cult-like,[106] although not always with entirely negative connotations.[107] The project's preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of credentials, has been referred to as "anti-elitism".[108]

>>3374885
hiding your words behind unknowables and then claiming your not denying their existence intellectual dishonesty

>>3374891
Wi have explained myself clearly.
I have asked you a few universal truths, you gave me this one:
>The instruments must hit a note that does not include a sharp (#) as if it included one it would not be music.
I've told you that we son't know what a sharp sounded like in Ancient Greece (and I've also mentioned that we don't know the exact pitches that were common 300 years ago), which means that that rule makes absolutely no sense for us.
Then I have mentioned that we know almost nothing about Greek music, and that we don't know what pitches they've used nor how wide were their intervals, which, translated to dumdums like you, means that we don't know how that music sounds.
And now, for some mysterious reason, you're saying that I am implying that Greek music has never existed, following logical leaps that are downright incoherent.

There it is, I have summarized it. Let's see if now you'll keep accusing me of thinking that Greek music has never ever existed. Hopefully your God will put some sense into your barely-working head, so that you might finally be able to fully understand at least one sentence.

>>3374901
We do know because people wrote pieces and were the taught the same fuckign skill in ancient Greece and they are now. We know what all of their pieces sound like, exactly, because people CAN FUCKING SPEEK AND READ ANCIENT GREEK.

>>3374908
Have you actually read these texts?
Here's the problem of your thought process: without precise tools which can measure frequencies, you can't say through words how high a pitch is, nor you can explain how far 2 consecutive pitches are. This is all there is in music, apart from rhythm, and we know NOTHING about it when it comes to ancient music. This stands for 1500aC European music, and this stands for 300bC Greek music.
The fact that they had music, and the fact that they could write means nothing, for they could not notate any of the musical elements I've mentioned.

Tell me that now you get it: I can't tolerate your stupidity any longer, it's depressing me.

>>3374865
>he did not use any part of the scientific method to coem to his conclusions, what he did was observe an incomplete picture of a few islands. For that reason and because science falls under the tree of philophophy he is a philosopher.
He used the scientific method. He proposed a hypothesis, made more observations, and the hypothesis survived the scrutiny. His theory has been updated with new information ever since, but evolution holds true to this day.

>it lead to social darwinism which basically meant that murder is okay, as it is justified with the pretense of survival of the fittest. Even today, gang-bangers in atifa call for teh death of white people as just under the banner of survival of the fittest.
This is completely made up bullshit.

For starters, socialism and social darwinism have nothing to do with one another. If anything, socialism opposes it fiercely. And Darwin never advocated for social darwinism, he only described the way the natural world selects specific traits in species for survivial.>>3374865

>Im smarter than any god or human, I know this because I killed my competition.
...I guess I've been had. It was my mistake for taking you seriously.

>>3374696
>it applies to a lot of people so its meaningless
What kind of fucking logic is this?
>>3374705
Go back to /r/eddit, systematizer.

>>3374706
I don't believe in order or law you heretic. Stop trying to virtue-signal through ridiculous extremes of negative theology.
No, there is one God; that statement is not prideful.
>>3374834
LE FAIRY TALES LMAO WTF XDDD
You need to go back

>>3375690
>I don't believe in order or law you heretic.
You have literally listed universal rules that apparently objectively apply to art, of all things.
Just give up, you dummy.

>>3375753
No I didn't, there is more than one person who thinks you're a retard.