This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#311C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/27/2013 2:49:09 PM
fudrick posted...
I think that was perfectly polite and reasonable. I got a bit less polite when you completely ignored that request for clarification, acted as if it was just a way of dodging your questions, started repeatedly making broad generalizations about a large nebulous group of people after I corrected you several times, and after you started asking loaded questions with the (apparent) intent of painting all atheists as either hypocritical or amoral rape supporters due to your fundamental lack of understanding of the position I've put forth in this thread and that of atheism itself.


Trust me, I have been equally frustrated with you as well, I've just tried to be more mature about it. For one thing, I never asked if you had a learning disability. Second, you ignore the actual point of my posts if you can instead pull out one random sentence or phrase to scoff at. Again, immature, and I'm not interested in wasting any time responding. I have no idea why you bother, either.

Third, you say things like that I intend to "paint atheists as hypocritical or amoral rape supporters," which is just not true whatsoever. I've pointed out that atheism does not by itself say that raping someone is morally wrong. Even Kozlo understands this. Since you haven't displayed any understanding of this fact about atheism- but instead conclude that I'm actually saying all atheists are rapists- I can't even fathom how to respond to you anymore. I don't like wasting my time with people who misrepresent my arguments and argue against a point I'm not even making. Unless you can acknowledge or refute the statement I bolded above, do not expect me to address you again.

Faust_8 posted...
fudrick isn't being unreasonable, kozlo just has far more patience than practically anyone. Expecting everybody to be like kozlo is like expecting Christians to act like Jesus. Most people only have so much patience, and this has been a long topic talking about the same thing. Not even really progressing at that one thing, just both sides continuously finding new ways to rephrase what was already said. Throw in your shenanigans and it's no wonder some people become a bit less than absolutely polite. (If you're wondering what the shenanigans are, read fudrick's latest post, or reread some old posts. Hell, the very existence of this topic was a low blow.)


It's as if you don't think you've tested my patience as well. And I think the topic has made some progress in the past five pages, but I do not really care if you agree. Please get over the fact that this topic exists, or put me on ignore, but I already addressed your whining at the beginning of the topic. I even apologized for being emotionally distressing, to you, personally.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#312fudrickPosted 1/27/2013 7:37:19 PM
C_Mat posted...
For one thing, I never asked if you had a learning disability.


That post was not sarcastic, I truly did not mean offense with that. There's nothing wrong with having a learning disability.

C_Mat posted...
Second, you ignore the actual point of my posts if you can instead pull out one random sentence or phrase to scoff at.


I'd like to see an example of this, if you don't mind, as I can't recall doing anything like this. As far as I remember I've tried to respond to all the points you've made in this thread.

C_Mat posted...
Again, immature, and I'm not interested in wasting any time responding. I have no idea why you bother, either.


I'm genuinely curious to discover your thought process here.

C_Mat posted...
Third, you say things like that I intend to "paint atheists as hypocritical or amoral rape supporters," which is just not true whatsoever.


I'm sorry, I thought that your entire intention in creating this thread was to expose the alleged hypocrisy atheists exhibit if they proclaim an acceptance that moral standards are subjective. Is that not correct?

C_Mat posted...
I've pointed out that atheism does not by itself say that raping someone is morally wrong.


Atheism does not by itself "say" anything other than that the individual who has professed atheism does not hold a belief in any deity or god. That's it.

C_Mat posted...
Even Kozlo understands this.

Well, kozlo strikes me as a very intelligent, insightful, and understanding man, so it seems a bit odd to me that you would say this in this way, as if he was just some idiot and anything he understands should be well known to and understood by everyone. Not that the specific thing you're referring to here is difficult to understand, but I'm just commenting on the way you phrased this statement.

C_Mat posted...
Since you haven't displayed any understanding of this fact about atheism

I haven't? I've tried to tell you several times that atheism doesn't specifically posit any stance on morality.

C_Mat posted...
but instead conclude that I'm actually saying all atheists are rapists

I didn't say this.

C_Mat posted...
I can't even fathom how to respond to you anymore. I don't like wasting my time with people who misrepresent my arguments and argue against a point I'm not even making.

I've got an idea. For the sake of clarity and understanding one another's positions and the arguments we've put forth, why don't you clearly articulate exactly what it is that you're trying to argue here?

From my perspective, it seems that at varying points throughout this discussion, you've tried to prove that atheists do believe in objective moral standards, that atheists can't believe in objective moral standards, that atheists have no basis for any moral stances at all whether they be subjective or objective, that consensus is useless and doesn't tell us anything, that consensus doesn't define whether something factual, and that consensus does define whether something is factual. So I suppose that in order to better understand you, asking for a clear statement of your position would make sense.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#313fudrickPosted 1/27/2013 7:37:21 PM
C_Mat posted...
Unless you can acknowledge or refute the statement I bolded above, do not expect me to address you again.

In case it wasn't clear from my response, I do understand that "atheism itself" posits no stance on morality.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#314kozlo100Posted 1/28/2013 10:33:54 AM
C_Mat posted...
You raise a good point, when you put it that way I guess it's not a fact that a dollar has value. You totally ignored all my other responses in that post.


That was intentional. I believe those responses will be best addressed by pursuing this line of conversation.

So is it a flaw in the monetary system that the dollar does not have any objective value, or that its worth is a matter of public consensus? Is it a problem that the value changes, and that there are even people for whom the dollar carries no value at all? Does this break economics in some way?

Perhaps more importantly, can the value of a dollar be 'proven'?

From the other angle: Excepting human life, as it's the thing in question here, is there anything for which you can say "it is a fact that this has value"? If so, where does that value come from?
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#315fudrickPosted 1/28/2013 11:17:02 AM
This is off topic, but kozlo, did you ever notice that that karlpilkington guy wound up closing his thread on the resource based economy without responding to any of our most recent contentions? I'm honestly not sure whether I should find that hilarious, or sad.

Either way, I want my "useless paper with dead guys on it" lol
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#316kozlo100Posted 1/28/2013 11:59:31 AM
Yea, I did catch that. Honestly I think he was poeing the whole time and we'd just backed him too far in the corner to keep it up. Still, was a fun conversation.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#317fudrickPosted 1/28/2013 12:15:08 PM
I suppose you could be right. Something about his posts made me feel that he was very sincere, though. I'm not sure what it was, exactly. He also posted something about a conspiracy regarding Osama being killed in 2001 in another thread, so either he decided to troll in two very different ways, or he's just rather gullible and naive. Either way, yeah it was certainly enjoyable.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#318C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/28/2013 11:52:32 PM
fudrick posted...
That post was not sarcastic, I truly did not mean offense with that. There's nothing wrong with having a learning disability.


You probably didn't intend any offense, I still feel that question was over-the-top and unnecessary.

I'd like to see an example of this, if you don't mind, as I can't recall doing anything like this. As far as I remember I've tried to respond to all the points you've made in this thread.


While there are many examples, the one I was thinking of when I read this was this exchange:

C_Mat: Atheism says nothing on the matter; however, my claim is that an atheist- who believes in (godless) evolution as an all-encompassing theory of human behavior and development- has no basis to say that raping a person is always objectively morally wrong.
fudrick: I've personally met atheists who did not accept evolution at all. Educate. Yourself. On. Atheism.

Your response refutes nothing I said (I clearly described an atheist who believes in evolution, not to all atheists who have ever lived), nor was there anything constructive about it, so it amounts to nothing more than petty heckling. This is why I have a hard time taking you seriously.

I'm sorry, I thought that your entire intention in creating this thread was to expose the alleged hypocrisy atheists exhibit if they proclaim an acceptance that moral standards are subjective. Is that not correct?


Nope, my purpose is to show that all atheists actually live as if there are objective moral values and duties, whether they admit that or not. I agree that there are some subjective moral rules, but not all of them are subjective, and whether or not subjective morality exists has not been my agenda. I'm establishing objective morality, not necessarily attacking subjective morality.

Atheism does not by itself "say" anything other than that the individual who has professed atheism does not hold a belief in any deity or god. That's it.


Then how come our conversations have gone like this so far:
C_Mat: Atheism does not by itself say that raping someone is wrong.
fudrick: You think atheists should be rape supporters!

That is not a reasonable response; this is the definition of a non-sequitur. A reasonable response would refute what I had said, or agree with the logic.

Well, kozlo strikes me as a very intelligent, insightful, and understanding man, so it seems a bit odd to me that you would say this in this way, as if he was just some idiot and anything he understands should be well known to and understood by everyone. Not that the specific thing you're referring to here is difficult to understand, but I'm just commenting on the way you phrased this statement.

I meant no disrespect toward Kozlo.

I haven't? I've tried to tell you several times that atheism doesn't specifically posit any stance on morality.

Then when I point that out, you should agree, move on, instead of acting like that means I'm accusing atheists of being "amoral rape supporters."

I didn't say this.

Yes you did.
fudrick: Yes, I'm insulting when you're practically insinuating that you're surprised atheists don't go around raping people.
fudrick: you started asking loaded questions with the (apparent) intent of painting all atheists as either hypocritical or amoral rape supporters
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#319C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/28/2013 11:53:06 PM
I've got an idea. For the sake of clarity and understanding one another's positions and the arguments we've put forth, why don't you clearly articulate exactly what it is that you're trying to argue here?

From my perspective, it seems that at varying points throughout this discussion, you've tried to prove that atheists do believe in objective moral standards, that atheists can't believe in objective moral standards, that atheists have no basis for any moral stances at all whether they be subjective or objective, that consensus is useless and doesn't tell us anything, that consensus doesn't define whether something factual, and that consensus does define whether something is factual. So I suppose that in order to better understand you, asking for a clear statement of your position would make sense.


Let's break this down if you still don't get it.
Do I think atheists believe in objective moral standards? Yes.
Do atheists have any logical reasons (without opinion) to believe in objective moral standards? No.
Do atheists have an objective basis for moral standards? No.
Do atheists have a subjective basis for moral standards? Yes. There is no way you can 100% logically prove a subjective moral statement is "true," as it's based on subjective reasoning. None of you has displayed a way to "reason" your way into making a moral statement even though some of you claimed you could.
Is consensus useless? No, I've said it's helpful several times.
Does consensus define whether something is factual? No, only an idiot would think that.

I was incorrect when I said that it's a fact that a dollar has value, and the reason I didn't put much thought into answering that question the first time is that I didn't see (and still don't see) how a statement about monetary value is going to prove anything about human value. In the next post, I'll try to elaborate on this.

Are those clear enough for you?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#320C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2013 12:30:29 AM
kozlo100 posted...
That was intentional. I believe those responses will be best addressed by pursuing this line of conversation.

So is it a flaw in the monetary system that the dollar does not have any objective value, or that its worth is a matter of public consensus? Is it a problem that the value changes, and that there are even people for whom the dollar carries no value at all? Does this break economics in some way?

Perhaps more importantly, can the value of a dollar be 'proven'?

From the other angle: Excepting human life, as it's the thing in question here, is there anything for which you can say "it is a fact that this has value"? If so, where does that value come from?


Alright, but I am not backing down from my earlier positions, and I'd like to revisit them after we settle this.

When you talk about the value of a dollar, I'm assuming you mean an American dollar. If so, we can initially point out that the probably 90% of the world's population that doesn't live in America (just a guess) places no value on an American dollar (unless you consider that some might convert the American dollar to their own currency and get some value from it, but you get the point). Already, you could give everybody in the world a dollar and the majority will probably find no value in it. If this alone wouldn't dismantle the idea that it's a "fact" that a dollar has value, there's more...

Yes, it's a flaw in the monetary system that the dollar's value is left up to consensus. Not a flaw that the system could probably overcome. Yes, it's a problem that the consensus' opinion of a dollar's value changes over time. I was at a seminar tonight where I got a free dinner and had to listen to an hour-long talk about retirement plans. They mentioned that a dollar bill in 1982 would be worth $2.38 when adjusted for 2013's level of inflation. Yes, it's a problem that this value changes, because in 100 or 200 years, an American dollar could possibly be considered worthless by the consensus. Obviously, consensuses* change; facts do not.

And it most definitely "breaks economics" when people have uneven opinions of the value of a dollar. Have you ever tried offering money to someone that doesn't value it? A few years ago, I was offered a job where I would make $2 more per hour than I made then, but accepting it would have forced me to work hours that took me away from my family more, so I turned it down. That $2 was essentially meaningless. Economics can't account for that.

So I would say you can prove that a consensus of Americans ascribes varying degrees of value to an American dollar bill. This wouldn't, however, make it a fact that American dollars have value, as the majority of people in the world might not think an American dollar is pretty much worthless. And again: facts don't change, but consensuses do all the time.

I think that's a pretty logical response to everything you asked, but let me know if I missed anything. For your last two questions regarding value in general:

No, I don't think you could reasonably say it's a fact that anything has value from an atheistic perspective. In the last episode of Cheers, all the characters are sitting around the bar and someone makes the remark (paraphrasing) that, "Some people think all of our lives are just a cosmic accident and that nothing we do has any true meaning." Then someone else responds, "Hey, there's a happy thought," and everyone laughs. I'm trying to look at that quote from an atheist's point of view, and I can't refute it. Not trying to be dark and depressing, but it feels like the atheist must go through life inventing imaginary meaning for things that have none.

*consensuses is a funny word.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk