California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, I would probably be closer(in my own opinion) to moral skepticism, moral nihilism, or some variety of egoism. The latter perhaps can being most similar to moral relativism, as usually I argue against the idea that morality can in fact be relative.

So why even be in this discussion? Your thoughts have no value, though in asserting them you automatically accept that they have some value. Already you are valuing. I am coming from a utilitarian point of view, as that is the framework our entire society is based on. You can't say anything to refute this, as your statements have no value , as you have accepted (or have you?). Of course, mine don't either in your logic system, and so there is no point in us even talking . You shoot yourself in the foot with your relativism. In the end, you put yourself into a circular form of logic that helps no one, and is simply intellectual masturbation.

I wasn't the one pushing morals. Of course, me pushing lack of morals is JUST AS VALID as him pushing his dogmatic morals. See, you contribute nothing of value, since you're simply saying everything lacks value. Whats the point of even discussing it then? There is none. Of course, you can spam the whole forum, and of course there is no value (Though, you will get banned). In fact, you make an argument for anything, and in the end it won't mean anything. So whats the point? Intellectual masturbation.

You can say I contribute nothing. At least I try, working off the utilitarian framework our society is based off. "Oh, but thats arbitrary!". Yes, and breathing is arbitrary, as is life. Why even continue it?

Nobody's thoughts inherently have value. I know *I* am valuing, but that does not mean that you value what I value. Frankly, action implies ends and values. Well, no, our society is based upon a myriad of different points of view, and there are a few scholars who have in the last century affirmed different points of view for morality such as Rawls and Nozick. I have only accepted a lack of objective value, not subjective value, and my denial of the existence of value was based upon subjectivity. Me? I was hardly engaging in ANY relativism through most of this, and what of my arguments was that relative? Like I said, Esceurd said similar things to myself. Well, really Kalister1, if you stop to listen to my arguments rather than go "OMG, teh postmodernism!!", you would recognize that I am trying to make a metaethical claim.

You are pushing morals. Your "lack of morals" is a moral claim, and really a positive a one. No, I do contribute something of value, skepticism. Oscuria is probably some divine command theorist, but you, you are an odd one. Everything has no objective value, that is what I have been saying. What is the point of not discussing it? The point is clarification of thoughts. Your own position is like a theologian that says "What is the point of philosophy without theology? There is nothing firm to stand on!". Really though, by smashing down systems, we can try to find systems that are harder to smash, and really reach the basic premises of things to recognize the driving forces behind the discussion. We need to go a bit meta.

Well, frankly, society is not so utilitarian as you claim. There are Christians, there are libertarians, there are rawlsians and egalitarians, there are egoists, and so on. And none of those groups are so much utilitarian, but they are not necessarily less valuable, and frankly, why should a status quo philosophy be blindly accepted anyway? You are right, everything is arbitrary, but it is best that we find the arbitrary roots of it and start analysis from there, and go to the depths of the ideas rather than critique the surface issues. You know, look for inconsistencies, look for thinking problems, look for something of substance rather than talk about dicks.

You are talking about things that are out of the depths of this thread. Why don't you start a new one instead of taking over this one?

Again, you simply are saying absolutely nothing besides that. Nothing has no value ad nauseum. So why don't you give us your great big philosophical treatise on how everything works? Or are you just going to keep going with a nihilistic/post modernist, "I don't have anything to contribute, but I'll keep saying how everything is a construct so I still have a say!"

Why should it not? Your asserting that there shouldn't be one is just as valid as me asserting there should be. Again we get nowhere. My utilitarian point of view is just as valid, so there is no discussing it, it ends here. You can say anything you want, and my simple retort is "Why isn't my view just as valid?". In your mode of logic, that is actually an argument!

Not really, you started off on the route "why does a god care where a man puts his dick?" and other things of that nature.

Well, Kalister1, I am not making a positive moral assertion. I am saying that attempts to make one are misguided. As I have stated now multiple times, Esceurd has said things similar to what I seek to suggest. Frankly, if your construct carries as big of a flaw as it does, it needs to be critiqued and perhaps demolished. Obviously, my criticism is that you are going off on something without proper basis, and this is a problem because the premises you are accepting are not the ones that everyone in the discussion is accepting. I did not attack logic or any more basic premises, only your moral premises.

Why should it not? Well, that isn't what the discussion is. If you want to make a positive assertion on why utilitarianism is correct though, be my guest, it is better than talking about dicks. Frankly, you have just been assuming morality then ignoring the fact that you are assuming morality, which is just dishonest and something I was having a problem with. Also, Kalister1, that argument is not necessarily an argument, let's just say that I really do assert moral nihilism or skepticism, such a claim stands against any claim of yours possibly being correct, and if I use some metaethical logic to support it, then it may hold up as the claims themselves are metaethical rather than ethical.

Which applies directly to this thread



Yes, but your assertion that there is no morals is just as valid as mine that there is a utilitarian one. As you said, a negative assertion is still a positive one. In your view, there is no moral premises, and nothing to be constructed. What is the point of even having this discussion? There is none. I can simply say that clarifying positions serves no purpose, and in the end, it doesn't (in your point of view). I can't win, because you'll simply morph, because you are not genuine in your need to find a truth, or work off a reasonable basis. You simply want to intellectually masturbate through a postermodernist construct (which is still a construct under their definition)



Why should it better than talking about dicks? In your framework, everything is just as valid. You are being hypocritical.

The dicks were in reference to the fact that is all it comes down to a god that cares far too much about where people stick their penis.

I've always come off a utilitarian form of morality. See, in the end your arguments come to nothing, as they are coming off a nihilistic basis which serves to help no one. You are simply intellectually masturbating. Where is your basis for even using logic? Why even use it? This discussion is over, because you're just arguing over something that isn't even in the context of the thread and your own arguments can be used against you (leading us nowhere). You can simply say that I have no basis, but then come off as having a basis yourself. Why use logic? Why do this, or do that? There is no basis for it, because in the end, in your mode of logic, there is no basis for anything.

Do straight people love sodomy? I dunno about that. If the gays say we love fudgepacking, it must be so. Who would have a better knowledge of our lifestyle than gays?

Who cares? They have a right to do it, gay or straight. If you think it's TEH DEBIL that's your problem, but don't hold the rest of humanity to your standard of morality.

Phagocyte ... I don't force it on you so much as you reject it.

And ultimately must lead to morality.


Why is it as valid? If there are no moral premises, then why is the utilitarian moral premise in existence? And if there is a utilitarian moral premise, then where the heck does it come from? Well, the point of this discussion is to recognize how man relates to other men within society. If morality does not exist then governments are not moral forces, but then what are they? Well, we can say that they are egoistic compromises perhaps. Well, the issue is that there are very little reasonable bases, but I have not been dishonest so much as you have been attempting to label me to dismiss me.

No, everything has as much objective value, not validity. Did I say validity? I thought I said value.


Well, how is there an objective "too much caring where a being sticks their penis"? There isn't, it is subjective.

No, my arguments lead to different conceptualizations of society. Once again, I say that your dismissal, based upon your desires, is really sort of postmodern in and of itself. My basis for using logic is because human being use logic to process data and I am processing data. I could choose not to use logic, but if I do not use logic then I often feel a lack of reassurance other beings get what I am saying, nor do they feel satisfied when I speak to them. There certainly are bases for doing things, human desires are bases, but the issue is that you have taken upon yourself a claim of consistency, so I am trying to make you consistent and recognize how much you actually are just functioning on egoism or arbitrariness so that way you may be consistent in your treatment of other people's egoism or arbitrariness.

Well, no, you seek to make laws on these morals and interfere with other's moral choices and thus force it upon people. I mean, if you are correct, both force and rejection occur, but force still occurs.

I believe AG might be challenging you based on the way you are approaching to oscuria, which he tries to question everything in a more objective way I think, although I kinda question that as well

Now, I obviously don't agree with oscuria, and well, his opinions are based in the Bible, so we all know where it comes from, now "piece of crap"? no. Homophobic? well, I am thinking about doing a thread.

If he or anyone would be commiting crimes against them or beating them just because of their sexual orientation then that would make anyone a piece of crap, at least he and other christians here don't have shown hatred, however some sort of discrimination and a judgments that can damage them, yes, toward homosexuals, and worse towards transgenders.

I actually thought about making a question like that to someone who is nihilist, if they think it is not wrong to have sex with children, and too see if they would apply nihilism philosophy in this case or not, or just apply them in some cases. But then, I'd like an explanation from the nihilism point of view about that issue.

I think we're in the same boat here.

Postmodernists aren't genuine, they aren't looking for truth, just to send you in a run around. They question every definition of words (linguistic gymnastics), call everything arbitrary, then try to assert logic. Isn't that arbitrary in itself? They shoot themselves in the foot, their own postmodernist beliefs are a construct.

"Oh really? So, 5 year old are okay? Logic goes out the window? Everything is arbitrary, based on pre conceived notions, even thought itself!"

Well, maybe Oscuria isn't piece of crap. He is just slightly off with condemning people left and right, especially considering we have members who practice alternative sexual lifestyles right here in this thread. I mean, we have some homosexual members who wouldn't feel nice being condemned to hell, or called immoral, just because some book says they are living in sin, that they are even inferior. .

No, they wouldn't say it is ok, they would say that it isn't right and that it isn't wrong either, however, I must think egoism should play a role in this case. Note: This is not to attack to AG or his views, in the contrary I like most of his posts. And he doesn't seem nihilism either, to my view, he might question the objectiveness of morality, but that wouldn't mean that he doesn't follow a moral code or that he believes certain moral codes work and some don't. But I don't know really, so I can't say for sure, hope he replies

Isn't right.. or wrong.. which gets us...nowhere. Why even post?

:Wakes up in the morning:
"What is the point of breathing?"
:stops breathing:
:dies: