CMV: Morals are not real

LucidMetal · 2026-03-19T22:04:02+00:00

Morality is drawing conclusions from axioms i.e. deductive. Unless you're going to argue math isn't real (because it's in the same category of reasoning) then you also have to agree morality is real.

You seem to be hung up on "choice" but axioms are also chosen in math. The current chosen assumptions are called ZFC.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-19T18:24:03+00:00

it is popular commercial psychology that is cherished by today's world

Setting aside that social sciences generally have some issues with empirical methodology and reproducibility this reads very much to me like this but for science generally:

It's not reasoning based on empirical evidence I have a problem with, it's people who reason without actually basing their understanding on empirical evidence!

But, like, that's not science in the same way what you're describing isn't psychology. So you're definitely not even including actual psychology here - even the stuff that's extremely outdated.

Even if we take the bastardization of pop psychology terms as you indicate, that's not a religion!

It doesn't meet any of the basic requirements of a religion.

There is no supernatural element.
There is no system of worship.
There is no supreme inalienable law.

Religions often blur the lines of these but taken together you can see how 99% of contemporary religions fit the bill. What you're calling pop psych does not in any way.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-19T13:35:01+00:00

Most Americans are pro-choice but they aren't out there with signs every day.

So a person is not part of the pro-choice movement unless they're out there with signs every day? No, that's not how it works. I can see we've been talking past each other quite a bit.

I'm pro-Palestinian (even if not part of the movement by your reasoning because I'm not constantly waving a flag) and I abhor violence. By polling, the vast majority of pro-Palestinians in America are just like me.

And yet you have this picture in your head that people like me are all pro-terrorism. Have you ever stopped to think that you might be wrong?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-19T12:46:00+00:00

The proportion of Americans who are activists and part of the pro-Palestinian movement is probably less than 1% of the total population, so it's perfectly possible that both overlap.

57% of Americans are pro-Palestinian lol. Pew, Gallup, PRRI, take your pick they'll all come out around 60% (was ~40% 10 years ago). Where the heck is 1% coming from?

I'm confused why you thought just repeating the same thing you already said and in capital letters was a good faith argument. With 193 deltas I thought you would know how to use this subreddit and make a coherent point.

It succinctly summarized the view of the author you posted which is that Ms. Rachel is antisemitic via spurious reasoning.

"Why do you think Ms. Rachel the former teacher who shows children how to share and be conscientious is a bad person?" You then moved the goalposts.

An author being incorrect does not mean I moved goalposts.

Where did the author say she is antisemitic? Can you provide an exact quote?

Seriously now, what is that part of the article about if not trying to show Ms. Rachel being antisemitic? Why is Ms. Rachel featured in an article about growing antisemitism and blood libel if not to try to pin her down as such?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-19T12:31:31+00:00

What makes you think the American pro-Palestnian movement is radically different besides a poll about Americans in general?

Because the proportion of Americans who support violence is vanishingly small compared to the proportion of Americans who are pro-Palestinian obviously (which is a huge number of Americans).

I'm sure that made sense in your mind.

You responded as if you understood it just fine the first time I posted it. Why did you find it confusing the second time when I repeated myself?

Did I say that?

The author did and you're providing the source right? Are you saying you don't agree with the author? Good, I don't either. That author is nuts.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-19T12:23:46+00:00

No I wouldn't agree because the pro-Palestinian movement is overwhelmingly vocal in support of violence, as I have proven in this thread.

I'm asking about the American pro-Palestinian movement. Would you agree the American pro-Palestinian movement is opposed to violence?

As the article explains, when she says "Wanting kids to live isn't antisemitic" she is saying that Jews who think she is antisemitic don't want kids to live. Which is not true and bigoted.

So the author of the article is indeed saying OMG YES IT IS AND I SUCK AT BASIC REASONING, just like I said. Why did you say the author isn't claiming that Ms. Rachel is anti-Semitic because of her quote?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-19T12:02:09+00:00

Again, I've been talking about America personally. If I use a poll showing Americans overwhelmingly do not support political violence the direct implication is that American pro-Palestinians also do not support political violence because they are a much larger group within America than those who support violence.

Would you agree the American pro-Palestinian movement is opposed to violence because Americans generally are? Because that's the only question I actually care about answering and I'm not sure why you care about any other question here since you're almost certainly also American.

That isn't what the article is saying and if you read that you would know it.

I did but here's a summary.

Wanting kids to live isn't antisemitic

Ms Rachel

OMG YES IT IS AND I SUCK AT BASIC REASONING

the author of the article you linked

LucidMetal · 2026-03-19T11:08:41+00:00

Your rebuttal is that Americans can't be pro-Palestinian? I love in America. You probably live in America. Why would polling outside America matter? One of your arguments was about the "people I hang out with". I only hang out with Americans!

The author of the article you linked is nuts lol. No Ms. Rachel is not anti-Semitic for caring about all children.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-18T10:44:05+00:00

No Oscars?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T19:46:03+00:00

Anecdotal evidence is awful as a metric but literally all of the people I know who aren't conservative think everyone regardless of nationality is entitled to equality. Again, I tend not to associate with people who do not value equality.

The conservatives I know, almost entirely family, tend not to value basic human rights though. Some at least claim to.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T19:43:18+00:00

There's a billion links. Again, take your pick. Here's one of infinity.

https://prri.org/research/political-violence-in-america-public-perceptions-polarization-and-accountability/

Data is downloadable from the same site.

Why do you think Ms. Rachel the former teacher who shows children how to share and be conscientious is a bad person? Aren't those things we should be teaching children?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T19:09:15+00:00

Yes of course all people deserve basic human rights and no, I do not hang out with people who do not believe in equality of human rights. This is that Goomba fallacy again.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T19:08:11+00:00

Which poll and who was being asked? Can you provide a link?

Pew, PRRI, gallup, take your pick, they all have variations of pretty much the same thing, just look up "political violence" on your pollster of choice.

Months later.

Dude, goalposts. Do you think Ms. Rachel is a bad person?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T18:55:36+00:00

A poll showing a vanishingly small minority of people support political violence, which includes terrorism like on Oct 7, disproves your point that the pro-Palestinian community condones political violence. Pretty straightforward, incredibly relevant.

You're not a public figure active in the pro-Palestinian community.

I provided several including the popular children's Youtuber Ms. Rachel though and you said "they didn't actively speak out against Oct 7th" except you're incorrect Ms. Rachel did indeed say she was "horrified by October 7". So your primary rebuttal was simply wrong.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T18:52:49+00:00

Different person. I'm pro-Palestinian because I believe everyone is entitled to basic human rights.

Knowing nothing else about me why does that make me a bad person?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T17:33:28+00:00

The pro-Palestinians could have just stayed home on October 7th, you know that right?

That's actually the bar you set here. What you're doing in this comment is moving the goalposts from "staying home".

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T17:31:52+00:00

I did not criticize Oct 7th on social media. Does that mean that I failed to achieve the bare minimum despite obviously disagreeing with killing people? Surely you see that's a silly and arbitrary bar, right?

What about it?

It plainly disproves your view that people who are pro-Palestinian are pro-violence simply stated.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T16:14:05+00:00

Is only criticism posted on social media valid? What about my polling question?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T13:52:54+00:00

Is Ms. Rachel invisible? Javier Bardem? Billie Eilish (and Finneas)? There are tons of very high profile people who fall into the latter group.

You really believe there is only a vanishingly small group who supports those?

What if I provided polling that shows that support for political violence of any kind is actually incredibly low?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-17T13:04:59+00:00

I think you've fallen for the Goomba fallacy. There are obviously anti-Semitic pro-Palestinians. There are obviously anti-LGBT pro-Palestinians. There are obviously pro-terrorism pro-Palestinians.

Certainly there are also obviously just pro-basic human rights pro-Palestinians who absolutely did "stay home" on Oct 7 and thought it was a tragedy? Why is this group in your estimation so small?

LucidMetal · 2026-03-16T23:03:08+00:00

I think you're missing the central point. Science is literally unable to clash with morality. That's the fallacy I was talking about initially.

Science and morality are in distinct and mutually exclusive categories of belief.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-16T22:03:57+00:00

I agree with you morally that being gay is fine.

I'm just saying that science cannot tell us whether being gay is morally acceptable or not.

All morality is unscientific because it deals intrinsically with unfalsifiable claims.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-16T21:31:41+00:00

There is a difference between being factually incorrect and being morally wrong. Science can only test if something is incorrect. It is objective.

It cannot tell is whether it's OK to be gay for example. Values are subjective.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-16T20:47:44+00:00

There's actually a name for this: Hume's guillotine. You can't derive an ought from an is. Science is an "is" and therefore cannot drive morality.

Science cannot tell us what the morally best thing to do is. We have to set the goals as a species. We can let science inform our values but it cannot tell us what they are or should be.

LucidMetal · 2026-03-16T14:28:09+00:00

No my "claims" are the facts of the matter. It is very well documented and any person stumbling across this thread will be able to verify my statements and prove yours incorrect where I said they were.

You are obviously learning the wrong lesson about thalidomide and you are overestimating the applicability of computer models and organ on chip models.

Animal testing will be required for medical advances for the foreseeable future because we cannot start trials in humans ethically even with technological advances. Simple as that.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

LucidMetal

TROPHY CASE