Homophobic Trump...

[Sparko]

and will you stop with the green is not blue dismissal and actually READ the posts and RESPOND to it? You keep changing our arguments, adding in words and then dismissing them with "more green is not blue" -- that is a dishonest debate tactic and shows that you are not only not understanding what we say, but are not interested in actual debate.

[carpedm9587]

although this is probably the most ironic post in the thread....

So what? The 'superiority' you claim is just your subjective opinion.

Actually - no. I think it is fairly self evident that a sentient being engaging in a sentient process (categorizing action) is behaving in an objectively superior fashion when they engage their sentience in that process. Sparko - you and Seer are attempting to defend the ridiculous notion that "not thinking/reasoning can be better than thinking reasoning." Applied generally, you're suggesting that the person who picks a new car by researching the options and examining the differences is not engaging in an objectively better process than the person who makes that choice by flipping a coin.

It's the most amazingly ludicrous position I think I have ever heard anyone take. That you can attempt to defend it with a straight face is amazing to me - but I cannot say it is surprising. People will twist into amazingly irrational knots to maintain a coveted position or worldview. So - if you wish to say "using a reasoned approach is not an objectively better process than not using a reasoned approach - by all means have at it.

What it tells me is that further discussion even about the meta-issues related to morality is largely pointless. Why on earth waste the time attempting a rational discussion with someone who sees no value in rationality?

[Sparko]

Umm...no...



I'm truly curious. Do yuo guys see ANY value in misrepresenting what I have actually said, and then engaging in a back and forth ridiculing your own misunderstandings? Do you think anyone reading cannot see through this type of strawman?

From my side - it doesn't seem all that productive. But then again, since I'd prefer not to waste time defending positions I don't take - it does save me a LOT of typing!

I am not misrepresenting you. I am stating what it appears to me that you are doing. Rather than actually try to understand what we are saying, you merely dismiss it and repeat yourself. All the while claiming you are the reasonable one who wants to debate morality. No, you don't. You just want to be right. You don't debate anything. You merely dismiss it ("more green is not blue", "I answered that previously", etc) and repeat yourself. And you do it even if you have to ADD WORDS to our argument so you can dismiss it! You are probably the most UNREASONABLE person I have ever debated with. You never change your mind. You don't even try to understand what the other side is saying. You just repeat yourself and dismiss any other opinion. The only reason I can see for that is that you just want to be right. Even if you have to make up reasons why you are right and others are wrong.

You claim that reasoning is the best methodology, then you refuse to actually engage in it or ever change your mind.

[carpedm9587]

and will you stop with the green is not blue dismissal and actually READ the posts and RESPOND to it? You keep changing our arguments, adding in words and then dismissing them with "more green is not blue" -- that is a dishonest debate tactic and shows that you are not only not understanding what we say, but are not interested in actual debate.

Sparko - if you don't want to see "more green is not blue" - then stop using it as an argument. Then I won't be obliged to point out that you just did it again and resort to the shorthand notation. So long as you continue to object "but moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective statements" - I will continue to point out that I agree - that I have always agreed - that you are simply saying one is not the other (i.e., hence, green is not blue) and are still not making an argument. That IS my response.

[Sparko]

Actually - no. I think it is fairly self evident that a sentient being engaging in a sentient process (categorizing action) is behaving in an objectively superior fashion when they engage their sentience in that process.

See? there you go claiming an objective argument for a subjective moral. If you could objectively argue that a moral should be followed, then you would defeat your own claim that it morals are subjective.

[carpedm9587]

I am not misrepresenting you. I am stating what it appears to me that you are doing.

No - pretty much your entire exchange with Seer was a misrepresentation of anything I've said.

Rather than actually try to understand what we are saying, you merely dismiss it and repeat yourself. All the while claiming you are the reasonable one who wants to debate morality. No, you don't. You just want to be right. You don't debate anything. You merely dismiss it ("more green is not blue", "I answered that previously", etc) and repeat yourself.

Then stop resorting to this non-argument. I can assure you that my responses will no longer point out the non-argument when you stop using it. It's simple, Sparko. Moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective claims. I agree. I have always agree. I ask "so what?" You and Seer respond with some variation of "moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective claims." You're not answering the "so what." You're repeating your objection, which is simply a restatement of the definition to which I have already agreed.

So try to answer "so what" without reminding all of us that "moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective claims" and you won't see "green is not blue" anymore. Otherwise...

And you do it even if you have to ADD WORDS to our argument so you can dismiss it! You are probably the most UNREASONABLE person I have ever debated with. You never change your mind. You don't even try to understand what the other side is saying. You just repeat yourself and dismiss any other opinion. The only reason I can see for that is that you just want to be right. Even if you have to make up reasons why you are right and others are wrong.

You claim that reasoning is the best methodology, then you refuse to actually engage in it or ever change your mind.

My mind changes when someone provides a cogent argument, Sparko - not before. That's the way it works. I have demonstrated a change of positions on many occasions, as a result of argumentation. You don't have an argument here - so you and Seer constantly resort to repeating the same non-response, or changing what I say and then objecting to it. I'm sorry if you find it frustrating that I will not accept either of those things and "bow to your superior wisdom." Make rational arguments - make ACTUAL arguments - and you will get somewhere.

Franky, Sparko - I think the reason you and Seer keeping going back to the "green is not blue" well is because it is your only possible response. People have been using this non-argument as an argument for so long, and others have been swallowing it for so long, that you are indoctrinated to NOT see how little you are actually saying. I think yuo actually believe you're making an argument.

You aren't.

[carpedm9587]

See? there you go claiming an objective argument for a subjective moral.

No - I am making the claim that there is an objective truth to the statement "using reason is better than not using reason." The subject matter is irrelevant. It could be choosing a car - buying a house - deciding to propose - or framing a moral argument. You and Seer are in the bizarre position of arguing "not using reason can be better or even equal to using reason when making decisions." I cannot imagine you making that argument in any other context - but you seem to so desperately need to hold on to "the book" that you are even willing to put forward this notion. It's rather amazing.

If you could objectively argue that a moral should be followed, then you would defeat your own claim that it morals are subjective.

My objective statement has nothing to do with moral conclusions - it has to do with the process of reasoning. You and Seer keep making it about moral conclusions - hence my observation that you consistently misrepresent the position.

So - what I glean from our discussion/debate is:

1) Sparko and Seer believe moral conclusions should be aligned with an absolute/objective moral framework (but they have no explanation for why and cannot show such a framework actually exists)

2) Sparko and Seer believe not using reasons can be equal to or better than using reason when making decisions (which is an amazing position for a sentient, reasoning being to take).

You are welcome to those beliefs - but I'm not going along with you on either of them without some pretty darn good argumentation. But #2 makes that kind of hard, because you apparently see irrationality and non-rationality as "just as good" as rationality. So how on earth you're then going to frame any kind of argument is beyond me. And #1 has proven impossible so far because your only argument is "green is not blue."

But then again, perhaps that explains your moral positions...

[seer]

Your process is inferior because it locks you to a moral position you have merely adopted and cannot discuss/defend/examine. It is a thought-free moral framework engaged in by a sentient being capable of thought. I would think that would be a self-evidently inferior process.

How is it a self-evidently inferior process if there are no objectively moral truths to be found or understood? Your whole reasoning process only serves to confirm what you believe. You made a deductive argument as to why you like pizza. How is that more valid or better than just liking pizza instinctively? I really don't see how inventing your own premises leading to the conclusion that you want adds anything.

[carpedm9587]

How is it a self-evidently inferior process if there are no objectively moral truths to be found or understood?

Wow - you really don't get this, do you? Because, Seer - "thinking and reasoning" for decision making is inherently better than "not thinking and not reasoning." If you want to argue otherwise - go for it. But it's a pretty stupid argument to make - if you will forgive my bluntness.

Your whole reasoning process only serves to confirm what you believe. You made a deductive argument as to why you like pizza. How is that more valid or better than just liking pizza instinctively?

More "green is not blue"

I really don't see how inventing your own premises to leading to the conclusion that you want adds anything.

More "green is not blue."

[Sparko]

Wow - you really don't get this, do you? Because, Seer - "thinking and reasoning" for decision making is inherently better than "not thinking and not reasoning." If you want to argue otherwise - go for it. But it's a pretty stupid argument to make - if you will forgive my bluntness.



More "green is not blue"



More "green is not blue."

Carp, you are not even trying to understand what Seer is saying.

Seer: [makes a rational argument. Which carp says is supposed to be the superior methodology]
Carp: LALALALA!!! I Can't HEAR YOU!!!

[carpedm9587]

Look, Seer and Sparko. The two of you are BOTH conflating two distinct issues:

1) Is it objectively better to apply reasoning when making decisions or not? I say it is - you say it apparently is not.

2) Is morality intrinsically subjective/relative or absolute/objective. I say it is subjective/relative - you say it is absolute/objective. When asked to defend that position, you respond with some variation of "moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective statements." I agree with that observation. I have agreed with it for dozens of pages now. It is what the words mean. It is basically a variation of "green is not blue" or "up is not down" or "cold is not hot." We ALL know moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective statements. I then ask "so what?" And you consistently, and persistently, respond with some variation of "moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective statements," completely oblivious to the fact that you are not actually making an argument. I agree with you. I know that. So what?

At least make an ATTEMPT to answer the "so what" without repeating the obvious. Or simply acknowledge that you cannot and that this is your only argument. Ultimately, I am pretty sure that is the case. NO ONE who calls themselves a moral realist or moral absolutist/objectivist has EVER been able too answer that "so what" without simply repeating the same mantra. That tells me there may actually be no good answer - and tells me that I am very likely on the right track.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you are not even trying to understand what Seer is saying.

Seer: [makes a rational argument. Which carp says is supposed to be the superior methodology]
Carp: LALALALA!!! I Can't HEAR YOU!!!

Actually - Seer (or Sparko) makes a non-argument (or conflates two issues, or misrepresents what I've said) - I point that out and explain HOW he has done so, and Seer simply repeats the same thing in the next post. Really - it is getting more than a little boring. I hang on because I've met Seer and I know he is not a stupid man. But I am not sure how much long I'll hang in waiting for him (or you) to "get it."

[seer]

Wow - you really don't get this, do you? Because, Seer - "thinking and reasoning" for decision making is inherently better than "not thinking and not reasoning." If you want to argue otherwise - go for it. But it's a pretty stupid argument to make - if you will forgive my bluntness.



More "green is not blue"



More "green is not blue."

So making a deductive argument as to why you like pizza is better or more valid than just instinctively liking pizza? How is that so since in both cases you are simply expressing your preference? And I reason everyday, but I usually have a goal in mind - in my field those goals are objective. They are not mere personal preferences. One does not have to reason to know if one likes brussel sprouts or not, you just do or not. Your moral preferences are in that category - preference.

[Sparko]

Look, Seer and Sparko. The two of you are BOTH conflating two distinct issues:

1) Is it objectively better to apply reasoning when making decisions or not? I say it is - you say it apparently is not.

I will try one more time then I am done...

No we are saying when the end decision is just a subjective value then it doesn't matter. Because even if it is a "better" reason, the end result is still the subjective value. In other words it doesn't matter in the end because someone could have the same subjective value with a bad argument. And since the subjective value is subjective, it only matters to the person who holds it.

I like chocolate. You like vanilla. I decided I like chocolate because it makes me feel good. You like vanilla because it can be proven that vanilla is better for your health. Now reverse that. I have a good objective argument of why chocolate is better and you decide you like vanilla because you stepped on an ant. Does it really matter what argument you used to come to your subjective decision? No. Because in the end it doesn't matter to anyone but yourself. You can justify your preference anyway you want to.

If the end value is an objective value then of course the argument matters because it would affect everyone even if they didn't like it.

If I can objectively prove that the earth is round, then it is actually round even if you are a flat-earther and disagree. It matters. But if it is about a subjective moral value then it doesn't matter.

[carpedm9587]

So making a deductive argument as to why you like pizza is better or more valid than just instinctively liking pizza?

Making a reasoned decision is better than making an unreasoned one. Feel free to argue otherwise. It's a patently absurd position - not to mention self-refuting since you will have to use reason to make it. But then again, not to put too fine a point on it, you haven't been applying a great deal of reason to THIS discussion, so perhaps you actually think this.

How is that so since in both cases you are simply expressing your preference? And I reason everyday, but I usually have a goal in mind - in my field those goals are objective. They are not mere personal preferences. One does not have to reason to know if one likes brussel sprouts or not, you just do or not. Your moral preferences are in that category - preference.

Yes - my moral preferences are preferences. ALL moral preferences are preferences. They are subjective/relative. I've agreed to all of this. Again, I ask, so what? I think I can predict the response...