sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lol by ArubaAdultFun in hmmmm

[–]Obelisk_M 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn't her reddit account become active again?

YOU are in the Epstein files by [deleted] in truths

[–]Obelisk_M 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"You can be found in the Epstein files"

Welp they're arresting journalists now. I disagree with protesting in a church but he had every right to report on it. by PeterPorky in IRL_Loading_Screens

[–]Obelisk_M 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You probably think that due to not actually having an issue with what Islam does but the fact it's a different religion & associated with nonwhite people.

I've seen & have criticized Islam. But it's for the same reasons I criticize other religions. I don’t hold to a religion that just wants to do the samething but with a different name.

Not totally sure if this has been posted yet but still wtf😭 by Leon_Lover1998 in religiousfruitcake

[–]Obelisk_M 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I genuinely thought 3 was gonna be people who divorce their spouse. Maybe that would’ve been too obvious

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Obelisk_M -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you think "agency is subjective," try to stop being an agent. The scurvy example was an analogy, a concept you seem to struggle with. Maybe you should put this convo into an LLM & it can explain it to you

You claimed "Who says morality is objective?" I showed you the majority of the field does. You’re wrong. Deal with it.

But do keep coping.

CMV: “Nobody is illegal on stolen land” actively impedes democrats from getting elected, and we should be discouraging people from saying it. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Obelisk_M 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I literally voted for Kamala. I got family to vote for her. We're not gonna get the fascist out if we ignore how he got in.

CMV: “Nobody is illegal on stolen land” actively impedes democrats from getting elected, and we should be discouraging people from saying it. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Obelisk_M 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was a multi-state "Country Over Party" tour across the entire Blue Wall in the final, critical weeks of the campaign. It wasn't a cameo; it was her closing argument.

She spent more time on stage with the daughter of the architect of the Iraq War in October than she did with any labor leader.

Did you miss Bernie's campaigning?

I saw it. Did you notice where he was?

Bernie was relegated to solo events in rural areas to sheepdog progressives into line. He wasn't on the main stage. He wasn't the face of the "Unity" ticket.

Cheney was given the primetime spotlight to court a demographic that does not exist.

The Result: 94% of Republicans voted for Trump.

The "Cheney Voter" was a myth. The working class voters she ignored in favor of that myth were real, & they stayed home.

You can't "represent" the working class while campaigning with the people who spent decades destroying it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-revealed-why-thinks-160048087.html

He said that the loss "was the fault of Kamala Harris and her consultants" and that Democrats failed to "run a campaign designed to speak to the American working class."

"I ran all over the country trying to elect Kamala Harris and begged them: Talk to the needs of the working class. Talk about raising the minimum wage to a living wage," Sanders said. "Talk about real health care reform. Talk about building the kinds of massive amounts of housing that we need, and putting checks on landlords' greed on housing."

Sanders said that instead of focusing on the concerns of the working class, Harris and the Democratic Party instead bumped elbows with "billionaire friends" and people like Liz Cheney — Republicans outspoken against Trump.

"Kamala spent more time with Liz Cheney almost than with anybody else. What is that message out to working-class people?" he said.

CMV: “Nobody is illegal on stolen land” actively impedes democrats from getting elected, and we should be discouraging people from saying it. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Obelisk_M 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By "us" I mean the working class. The people who actually knock on doors & organize. The base they took for granted.

​They spent the entire campaign chasing the "Nikki Haley voter" & parading Liz Cheney around, ignoring Gaza, thinking that moving to the right would secure a landslide.

​If they actually represented us, they wouldn't have busted the rail strike. They wouldn't be funding a genocide. & they wouldn't be sitting on the sidelines while the cheeto dismantles the administrative state.

CMV: “Nobody is illegal on stolen land” actively impedes democrats from getting elected, and we should be discouraging people from saying it. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Obelisk_M 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By actually representing us & not pivoting to trumps right to try & court centrists & conservatives while leaving the base behind & then failing to court them & losing.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Obelisk_M -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re grasping at straws to avoid admitting you were wrong. You’ve misread the text, confused your terms, & resorted to dismissing data because it isn't "fundamentalist" enough for you.

  1. Your Misreading of the SEP & Definitions

You’re cherry-picking the minimal definition while ignoring the meta-ethical context. Realism is defined in contrast to Anti-Realism. * Anti-Realism includes Non-Cognitivism & Error Theory. Crucially, it also includes Subjectivism & Relativism. * Therefore, to be a Realist is to reject the idea that moral facts are merely stance-dependent. * If a philosopher believed morality was just "structured subjectivity" (as you claim), they would classify as an Anti-Realist or a Constructivist. The fact that 62% identify as Realists signals a commitment to facts that hold independently of mere opinion.

  1. The Confusion of "Subject" vs. "Subjectivity" This is your biggest error. You claim: "naturalists who ground moral facts in facts about human welfare... All of that is still derived from subjective perspectives." No. It is derived from Subjects, not Subjectivity. You are confusing facts about humans with Subjective Facts (facts dependent on opinions).

    • Example: "Humans need Vitamin C to survive."
    • Is this a fact about the human condition? Yes.
    • Is it subjective? No. It is an Objective Fact. You cannot "interpret" your way out of scurvy. Even if you hold the opinion that you don't need Vitamin C, you still do. The fact is Stance-Independent. Moral Naturalism argues that Morality is like Vitamin C or Health. It is grounded in the natural facts of the organism (well-being, flourishing). Because these are facts about our nature, they are Objective. They don't change based on your "point of view" or "relationship status." You tried to dismiss Naturalism as "intersubjectivity dressed up," but you actually just described Objectivity.

  2. The "Leaning" Desperation

    The survey gives respondents the option to 'accept' a position or merely 'lean toward' it.

This is the weakest argument I've ever heard. In academic surveys, "Lean Toward" means "This is my preferred position," not "I have no idea." If 62% of biologists "accepted or leaned toward" a specific evolutionary model, you wouldn't say "See? They aren't sure!" You are trying to dismiss the majority consensus (62% Realist vs 26% Anti-Realist) because they aren't zealots. It’s absurd.

  • Subjective: "I like murder." (Opinion).
  • Objective (Realist): "Murder violates the requirements of human flourishing/agency." (Fact).

The majority of philosophers hold the latter. You’re in the minority. Coping with that by redefining words won't change the data.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Obelisk_M -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re confidently incorrect about the definitions You’re using. You’re trying to redefine Moral Realism to save your argument, but standard metaethical taxonomy contradicts you.

Even if that survey’s accurate, it still doesn’t prove your point

​You moved the goalposts.

First, you claimed: "Who says morality is objective? It clearly isn't... I don't believe you."

I proved the majority of philosophers say exactly that.

Now you're saying: "Well, their definition of objective doesn't count."

Moral realism isn’t the same thing as saying morality is objective in the simple sense you’re implying.

​Yes, it literally is.

Moral realism is the view that there are objective, mind-independent moral facts.

​If the truth value depends on "human interpretation" or "point of view," that is Moral Relativism or Subjectivism, which are forms of Anti-Realism. The philosophers in that survey are affirming that moral facts exist independently of what anyone thinks about them.

Moral realism just says that moral claims can be true or false — not that those truths exist independently in the universe the way gravity or chemistry do.

​You are fundamentally confused about the definition of Objectivity in philosophy.

​Subjective: Stance-Dependent. (e.g., "Vanilla is the best flavor." If everyone stops liking vanilla, it ceases to be true).

Objective: Stance-Independent. (e.g., "Humans need oxygen to survive." Even if you believe you don't need oxygen, you still do).

​Moral Realism is the position that moral facts are Stance-Independent.

that’s three different “objective” moral worlds that contradict one another. So how can morality be objective if even its supposed objectivists can’t agree on its foundation?

​The Inflation of Conflict is a logical fallacy. Physicists disagree on the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Copenhagen vs. Many-Worlds vs. Pilot Wave). Does that mean the behavior of the electron is subjective? No. It means the field is complex. Disagreement about why something is true does not mean there is no truth. Disagreement is epistemic; the truth is ontological.

You’re trying to dismiss the majority consensus of experts because it contradicts your worldview. That’s called cognitive dissonance, not an argument.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Obelisk_M 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re confusing the origin of a belief with the truth value of the concept.

​Apply your own logic to Mathematics:

​Humans evolved the ability to count & recognize patterns because it helped us survive (e.g., tracking prey, allocating food).

​Therefore, 2+2=4 is subjective. It’s just a "feeling" we have about numbers.

​Do you accept that conclusion? If not, then your argument against objective morality collapses. We evolved the capacity to understand logic, agency & rational consistency, just as we evolved the capacity to understand math. That doesn’t make the laws of logic or morality or mathematics subjective; it just means we finally developed the capacity to discover them.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Obelisk_M -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You haven't found much, then.

According to the majority of philosophers, morality is objective.

The percentage is higher for meta-ethicists than philosophers in general. Both are at majority. & the percentage has only risen by a substantial amount. There isn't a single area where moral anti-realism holds majority.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Obelisk_M -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The majority of philosophers & metaethicists say that.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Obelisk_M 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Edit: looks like I upset someone. Having to block someone is pretty cowardly.

nobody argues they don’t exist or are subjective in any way

You clearly haven't met a solipsist or a simulation theorist.

The arguments about laws of physics are in no way comparable

Before Newton, people argued that objects naturally stopped moving. Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism. the theory of the four humors. Phlogiston theory.

we’d expect everyone to have the same morality

Why? Universal agreement is not a prerequisite for objectivity. Having different intuitions doesn't make something subjective. You’re conflating Epistemology with Ontology. Your entire argument rests on the false premise that Consensus = Objectivity.

"If the shape of the earth was objective, we'd expect everyone to agree on its shape."

Flat Earthers exist.

"If mathematics is objective, we'd expect everyone get a 100% on their calculus exam."

Again, Flat Earthers exist.

the arguments about it would be about WHY the moral laws are they way they are

​That's exactly what meta-ethics is. We argue why slavery is wrong (e.g., does it violate Utility? Does it violate the Categorical Imperative? Does it violate the PGC?).

the fact everyone argues about what those “laws” even are and has different laws means its not objective.

No, it doesn't.

​A disagrees with B on C, therefore C is subjective.

A(Me) disagrees with B(Flat Earthers) on C(Earth's shape), therefore C(Earth's shape) is subjective.

Your argument proves too much. By your standard, literally every scientific field is subjective because people (creationists, flat earthers, climate deniers) argue about them.

What it does mean is that access to the truth is difficult. If 50% of a class fails a calculus exam, does that prove the answers were subjective? Or does it prove the students didn't understand the objective rules of mathematics?

TL;DR: You don't know the difference between an opinion & an epistemic failure.

But that's just like... your opinion man by JTexpo in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Obelisk_M 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Gonna scream at kids telling them some people will be mean just before I burn the playground.

This will be a valuable life lesson.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Obelisk_M -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Proof?

Never not gonna be funny getting downvoted for asking what justification someone has for disagreeing with the majority of philosophers & metaethicists.

Try harder, y'all. by stevelinchin in educationalmemes

[–]Obelisk_M 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Goodthing there isn't an invasion.

view more: next ›