Take Back Our Country

[seer]

Wow, Seer. I am truly amazed you cannot see this.

OK - go take a walk, pick a speed at which you wish to walk, and then convince me that this speed you are walking is objective and was not subjectively chosen by you. When you can do that, I'll acknowledge that you are correct and I have erred. If you cannot, then the speed/position of a sentient observer is subjectively chosen. If it is a subjectively chosen framework, then it is analogous to a moral framework, which is likewise subjectively chosen/derived.

Carp and I am amazed that you can't see that objective speed (no matter the relative position chosen) is not the same as subjective beliefs. One is fully dependent on subjective beliefs the other isn't, which is completely relevant to your analogy. So I guess we are both astounded...

[carpedm9587]

So you are saying you don't even bother reading my posts? Because I explained it in my original post.

No - I read that one - and responded to it. I wasn't making the connection with your last post. Too many posts have flown by. As I noted in my "handwaving" response, that issue was covered in my discussions with Seer. I'll let those responses stand.

[carpedm9587]

Carp and I am amazed that you can't see that objective speed (no matter the relative position chosen) is not the same as subjective beliefs. One is fully dependent on subjective beliefs the other isn't, which is completely relevant to your analogy. So I guess we are both astounded...

I see you did not bother to take up the challenge, Seer.

The speed of a sentient observer is a subjective thing selected by the sentient observer.
The moral framework of a sentient moralizer is a subjective thing selected by the sentient moralizer.

That is the beginning place. Which (if any) of those two things do you disagree with?

[Sparko]

No - I read that one - and responded to it. I wasn't making the connection with your last post. Too many posts have flown by. As I noted in my "handwaving" response, that issue was covered in my discussions with Seer. I'll let those responses stand.

Your answer shows you still don't know what I was saying or remember it. You should at least take a look at past posts before responding to new ones. If you are overwhelmed by too many conversations, perhaps you should limit the number of threads you are participating in.

[Sparko]

I see you did not bother to take up the challenge, Seer.

The speed of a sentient observer is a subjective thing selected by the sentient observer.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Try using that excuse the next time the cops pull you over for speeding.

You don't select your speed. You measure it. It is relative to other moving objects, but the speed you measure is an actual speed, not something you just decide.

If A and B are moving in opposite directions from each other, then each of them will measure the same relative speed. B will see A moving at X speed. A will see B moving at X speed. X is a fixed measurement for each of them and if they are using the same unit of measurement, then each will have the same answer, X. A can't select that B is moving at 1/2X.

Relative in this example means "compared to" you are comparing a measurable effect from different locations. The effect (speed) is not a preference or choice. It is an actual effect.

Relative in morality, your definition is not a measurable effect. It is a subjective preference. You simply choose to believe X is moral or immoral. Your selection doesn't actually change whether X is moral or immoral. X is just X. To me X could be moral. To Seer it could be neutral. It is just a choice. I could just change my mind and say X is immoral tomorrow for no reason. A can't just decided that B is moving at 1/2X just because he wants it to.

[carpedm9587]

Your answer shows you still don't know what I was saying or remember it. You should at least take a look at past posts before responding to new ones. If you are overwhelmed by too many conversations, perhaps you should limit the number of threads you are participating in.

I did read it Sparko. I simply did not make the connection between your last "dodge/handwave" complaint (frankly, they kind of pepper your posts) and the specific post you were referring to. I have responded to the subjective/relative definition in my posts with Seer - I'll point you to those. Frankly, constantly repeating myself when people are not actually addressing the arguments made is a little bit tiresome, and kind of a waste of my time. So is responding to this series from you - so I'll leave it at that.

[carpedm9587]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Try using that excuse the next time the cops pull you over for speeding.

You don't select your speed. You measure it. It is relative to other moving objects, but the speed you measure is an actual speed, not something you just decide.

Excuse? Sparko - try telling the cop, next time you are pulled over, that you didn't subjectively choose your speed - the cop simply measured it. By that argument - you have no responsibility whatsoever. Of COURSE a sentient being chooses the speed they travel at. They may have measuring tools to help them measure it (relative to the surface of the earth), but it is still subjectively chosen.

Or do you have another proposal for how a sentient being determines what speed they walk, bike, or drive at?

If A and B are moving in opposite directions from each other, then each of them will measure the same relative speed. B will see A moving at X speed. A will see B moving at X speed. X is a fixed measurement for each of them and if they are using the same unit of measurement, then each will have the same answer, X. A can't select that B is moving at 1/2X.

All correct, and no one claimed the latter, so you're arguing against a position I did not take.

Relative in this example means "compared to" you are comparing a measurable effect from different locations. The effect (speed) is not a preference or choice. It is an actual effect.

Correct.

Relative in morality, your definition is not a measurable effect. It is a subjective preference. You simply choose to believe X is moral or immoral. Your selection doesn't actually change whether X is moral or immoral. X is just X. To me X could be moral. To Seer it could be neutral. It is just a choice. I could just change my mind and say X is immoral tomorrow for no reason. A can't just decided that B is moving at 1/2X just because he wants it to.

You are confusing "relative" and "subjective." The two words have different meanings, and each is being applied the same way in the two contexts (physical, moral).

Relative means "in comparison to" or "in relation to." Here are two relative statements:

• Object A is moving at 50 MPH (away) relative to me
• Action A is immoral relative to my moral framework.

Subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Here are two subjective statements:

• Sentient Observer B has decided to walk at 20 MPH.
• Moral Agent B believes lying is an immoral act.

I emphasized the subjective terms in each sentence for clarity. I'll leave you to put the rest of the argument together. I've done it several times now.

[Zymologist]

At what point does a never-ending discussion about morality itself become immoral?

[carpedm9587]

At what point does a never-ending discussion about morality itself become immoral?

Now THAT is a good question!


I think we may well be approaching that point. But, your honor, it's NOT my fault...

[seer]

The speed of a sentient observer is a subjective thing selected by the sentient observer.

Right, I said that he could choose his relative position. But you can not choose the objective measurement. Whether you are standing still when the car goes by, or whether you decide to get on your bike, the resulting relative speeds are objective. NOT depending on what you think, feel of believe.

The moral framework of a sentient moralizer is a subjective thing selected by the sentient moralizer.

Right, but unlike the resulting speed there is nothing objective resulting from your moralizing.

[Sparko]

Excuse? Sparko - try telling the cop, next time you are pulled over, that you didn't subjectively choose your speed - the cop simply measured it. By that argument - you have no responsibility whatsoever. Of COURSE a sentient being chooses the speed they travel at. They may have measuring tools to help them measure it (relative to the surface of the earth), but it is still subjectively chosen.

Or do you have another proposal for how a sentient being determines what speed they walk, bike, or drive at?

You seemed to be arguing that they decided the speed at which they were already traveling. Like the cop said, "you were going 60MPH" and you said, "NO I wasn't, I was only going 40 because that is the speed I choose to have been moving at"

Which if it did work that way, would be equivalent to your idea of morality

"You stealing that cookie was immoral"
"No it wasn't, according to my morality, I choose to believe all cookies belong to me"

You are confusing "relative" and "subjective." The two words have different meanings, and each is being applied the same way in the two contexts (physical, moral).

Relative means "in comparison to" or "in relation to." Here are two relative statements:

• Object A is moving at 50 MPH (away) relative to me
• Action A is immoral relative to my moral framework.

Subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Here are two subjective statements:

• Sentient Observer B has decided to walk at 20 MPH.
• Moral Agent B believes lying is an immoral act.

I emphasized the subjective terms in each sentence for clarity. I'll leave you to put the rest of the argument together. I've done it several times now.

Correct. And you are the one confusing relative (speed) with subjective (morality) - that is why your analogy of using speed doesn't work very well and why seer has been arguing against you.

[carpedm9587]

You seemed to be arguing that they decided the speed at which they were already traveling. Like the cop said, "you were going 60MPH" and you said, "NO I wasn't, I was only going 40 because that is the speed I choose to have been moving at"

I have no idea what you are talking about. When a sentient being moves - they choose the speed at which they move. If you disagree - then explain how a person in a car gets to a speed of 60 MPH if it is not by subjectively choosing to press on an accelerator, and subjectively choosing the speed at which they stop accelerating?

Which if it did work that way, would be equivalent to your idea of morality

"You stealing that cookie was immoral"
"No it wasn't, according to my morality, I choose to believe all cookies belong to me"

Since your statement above doesn't even come close to what I'm saying, I have no answer.

Correct. And you are the one confusing relative (speed) with subjective (morality) - that is why your analogy of using speed doesn't work very well and why seer has been arguing against you.

The speed of a sentient being is subjective chosen and relatively measured.
The morality of a sentient being is subjectively chosen and relatively measured.

Why you keep confusing the two terms is beyond me. They are fairly clear.

[carpedm9587]

Right, I said that he could choose his relative position. But you can not choose the objective measurement.

The acting of measuring will be objective.

Whether you are standing still when the car goes by, or whether you decide to get on your bike, the resulting relative speeds are objective. NOT depending on what you think, feel of believe.

And here is where you jump the rails. If MY speed is subjectively chosen, then the relative speed between me and an observed object (which changes when I change) is also subjective. It can be objectively measured, but its value is in part dependent on the speed I choose. That is what subjective means: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." If I choose to stand still, the other object is moving at a relative speed of 35 MPH. If I choose to move at 15 MPH, the relative speed is now 20 MPH. Both situations can be objectively measured, and they are influenced by my subjective choices, making the relative speed subjective.

I am confused as to why you think subjective choices cannot be objectively measured, or produce objective effects...?

I like pizza and subjectively choose to eat a whole pie. The pie can be objectively measured, and so too can my weight gain resulting from the consumption. My weight gain can be called "objective" because I can calculate the exact gain as a result of eating the objective pie with an objective number of calories. My weight is also subjective because I chose to eat the pies that led to its reality, so my weight gain is influenced by my thoughts, opinions, etc.).

Right, but unlike the resulting speed there is nothing objective resulting from your moralizing.

And I have already shown why this statement fails, so I'll let me previous post stand.

[seer]

And I have already shown why this statement fails, so I'll let me previous post stand.

No you haven't, there are no objective results that do not depend on what you think, feel of believe.

If I choose to move at 15 MPH, the relative speed is not 20 MPH. Both situations can be objectively measured, and they are influenced by my subjective choices, making the relative speed subjective.

No, because the resulting speed (the the actual measurement) does not depend on what you think, feel or think. You could be deaf, dumb and blind, and have no clue about relative speeds, they remain the same.

[Sparko]

I have no idea what you are talking about. When a sentient being moves - they choose the speed at which they move. If you disagree - then explain how a person in a car gets to a speed of 60 MPH if it is not by subjectively choosing to press on an accelerator, and subjectively choosing the speed at which they stop accelerating?



Since your statement above doesn't even come close to what I'm saying, I have no answer.



The speed of a sentient being is subjective chosen and relatively measured.
The morality of a sentient being is subjectively chosen and relatively measured.

Why you keep confusing the two terms is beyond me. They are fairly clear.

Yes they are clear, your analogy is not. You were complaining when Seer used color as an analogy, claiming it was trivializing morality, yet here you are trying to use choosing to walk at a speed as an analogy. Which not only is just as trivializing but makes no sense as far as an analogy. If you choose to walk at 3MPH, I can very easily measure you walking 3MPH and agree, yep you are walking 3MPH. Because we have an common objective point of measurement: The ground.

Choosing to walk at a specific speed is nothing like choosing whether an action is moral or not.

You seem to have the worst analogies ever but complain about other people's analogies. It boggles my mind. I get what you are arguing now, but dude, it is TERRIBLE. Really bad.