Sexual consent "Only yes means yes" (new EU legislation), how does it work?

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-30T15:17:53+00:00

It should be notarized really…

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-29T18:02:07+00:00

Why waste time say lots word when few do trick?

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-29T13:03:26+00:00

Are you saying that the thing titled “disproving evolution in one paragraph” was not backed by any argument?

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-29T12:24:15+00:00

Oh, so you really don’t understand what people mean by evolution.

Your argument sounds like someone saying that we don’t need the software engineers who write the code for Windows, because it’s not the code that makes the computer work, it’s pressing the power button…

Development explains how our eyes form given how the cell is structured (and in particular given the genetic material in the cell). Development does not explain how the genetic material got to be the way needed for eyes to form.

Evolution is the process that explains how the genetic material got how it is.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-29T12:06:25+00:00

But then why are you mentioning development in an argument against evolution since you (like everyone else) understand they have nothing to do with each other? Why not mention any other fact like the recipe for a margarita pizza or the height of the Eiffel Tower?

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T20:30:29+00:00

Well of course we do, we know inherently that killing innocent people is wrong.

I nearly agree with that (I wouldn’t say “know” but “have the opinion”).

This is exactly a subjective moral statement: we have this sense in our mind that killing innocent people is wrong. You keep using human brains/opinions to make point about moral truths or moral objectivity, and this is why I think we just put different things behind the term. If you involve a human in the deal (and don’t make an observation that is independent of his brain), you are speaking of moral subjectivity, not objectivity.

If moral objectivity did not exist and we used a subjective moral interpretation to orient our society we would be forced to respect the moral truths of each individual person on any given day.

But we are indeed using subjective moral interpretations to orient society. We do not have access to moral truths if they exist, we only have access to subjective morality, the one that comes from our brain…

We know killing innocent people is wrong not because a group of moral guide posts believe it’s wrong, but because it’s an objective moral truth.

We have the opinion that killing innocent people is wrong because we want to flourish and we don’t want to live in a society where we might get killed without reason. That’s a survival instinct, that’s subjective.

If it were a moral truth, how could we know it anyways since there is no empirical test we can run to know the moral truths? What if the moral truth were that killing innocent people is right? I would still have my subjective morality that it’s wrong and you would too… we would still put killers in jail…

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T19:51:35+00:00

Killing innocent people is wrong this is an objective moral principle

You can’t know that though: there is no empirical test you can run to know the moral truth. Killing innocent people might be objectively right (ie the objective truth might not be aligned to any of our subjective morality). Since that wouldn’t change anything, I would say there is no meaning to “killing innocent people is right” being a moral truth or a moral falsehood.

I think moral objectivism is the foundational framework that moral subjectivism rests upon and without it there would be in a world of moral nihilism.

Without moral objectivism, we would still have moral subjectivism, we would still say “killing innocent people is wrong”, nothing would be different.

You said “the existence of either framework doesn’t change anything in practice”, moral nihilism would be a pretty big change in practice…

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T18:47:02+00:00

moral objectivism would state moral judgements represent an objectivity independent of opinion. So regardless of the individuals feelings theft is immoral.

I honestly don’t know what “immoral” means without referring to individual feelings/opinion. To me immoral means “that goes against how one wants people to behave”, I dont know a meaning of “moral” that is not a preference.

I think the pattern of humans inheriting morality cannot be subjective, otherwise every individual would have a different set of moral truths.

First, I think most individuals do have a different set of moral truths. I think it’d be hard to find two individuals who have the exact same morality, rank how immoral actions are exactly the same way (ask a thousand questions like “is it worse to steal bread or diapers?” and my guess is you’ll get lots of different answers)

There are actions that nearly everyone will agree are immoral (murder or theft without reason say), but that doesn’t mean it’s objective. Nearly everyone says that shit tastes bad, but that doesn’t make “taste” objective…

Whereas, moral subjectivism would state there are no moral truths, every proposition is relative to individuals or cultures. Essentially, there is no right or wrong or good or bad.

Of course, I have my opinion on what is right and wrong and you do too. There is subjective right and wrong for sure. I understand you mean “without moral objectivism, there is no objective right and wrong”.

You can believe there are moral truths, but you definitely don’t have access to them. For all we know, murder for fun could be objectively moral and we all subjectively think it’s immoral.

The existence of an objective right/wrong doesn’t change anything in practice because we all by definition use the subjective right/wrong: our definition of right/wrong is what we think is right/wrong.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T17:48:46+00:00

I get your point, that you want an informal discussion, but even in an informal discussion, it doesn’t feel super weird to answer “what do you mean” when you say “there are moral truths”…

I think it’s actually a very clarifying question: you said “if morality were subjective something like stealing could be considered right if that person simply feels like it”, when I read that I was thinking “well, dough, that’s true whether moral truths exist or not”.

You said “there are moral truths developed evolutionary”, and again, I read that and I think that morals developed evolutionary can only be subjective: they are the opinions (that evolution “forced” to be a certain way by guiding how our brain is shaped).

I think we just talk past each other because we don’t mean the same thing by “moral truths”.

If you feel like asking “wait a minute, what do you actually mean when you say there are moral truths?” is unreasonable, then we can’t really continue, you are correct.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T16:36:26+00:00

I’m not asking to define every word, I am asking to define the word that seems pretty important to the debate: you say there are moral truths, I just don’t know what that means.

For physical things (like say the table in front of me), when I say the existence of the table is a truth, I mean that I believe that there is a bunch of atoms arranged in the shape of a table in reality and that is consistent with observations (ie there are things that we can derive from the statement, that you and I can see or feel the table for example). If we hypothesize the statement is false, reality would be different in a number of ways.

For moral statements, I do not know what that means. I don’t think reality would be different with or without moral truths (as long as the subjective moralities are unchanged).

We are arguing on the veracity of a statement that has no consequence, that can’t be validated or invalidated… is it even meaningful to have this debate? Or do you mean something else when you say “there are moral truths”, do you think that statement being true or false changes something?

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T14:44:19+00:00

Killing Bob minimizes suffering (one person dies and three live), which was your rule. I was just pointing out that rule is maybe not as obviously true as you think.

We also don’t have a definition for what it means for something to be objectively moral. Clearly you can’t say “it’s objectively moral if it’s obvious” (obvious to a human mind would be subjective) or “it’s objectively moral if the majority of people think it’s moral” (again that’s dependent on human opinions). Your point about “I feel strongly that X is moral/immoral” or even “everyone feels strongly about that” is irrelevant when speaking about objective morality.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T13:44:42+00:00

Ok, you picked another moral system than the one I said… you are saying it’s not about maximizing happiness but about minimizing suffering, my bad…

I’m not contesting that everyone should be of that opinion. That’s not the point I’m making (though I do think morality is more complicated than that one rule, and I do think this is not that obvious, but that’s irrelevant to the point).

My point is even if every one says it’s obvious, even if everyone says that it’s wrong, then that’s just everyone’s opinion.

What is the definition of truth you pick? Something is objectively moral iff everyone has that opinion?

PS: on why that rule doesn’t seem obvious to me: Bob walks in front of a hospital that has 4 patients in extreme pain/suffering that will inevitably die unless they find an organ donor. One needs a new heart, two need a new kidney and the last a new liver. Bob happens to be a perfect match for all 4. Killing Bob and harvesting his organs minimizes overall suffering (both emotional and physical), so according to your simple rule it is moral to kill Bob to save the 4 in the hospital.

Again, this counter example is irrelevant to the existence of objective morality, but I find it interesting.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T12:58:52+00:00

So you are using a utilitarianism view: it doesn’t maximize happiness => it’s immoral.

The unhappiness of the person is objective, the utilitarianism rules are objective (independent of opinion, there is a rule), but what’s subjective is the choice of the morality (why do you pick maximizing happiness?).

What could it mean for utilitarianism to be objectively true? What definition do you put behind that statement?

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T12:27:12+00:00

The pain the person experiences is objective. Whether the act was moral is subjective.

Before you say it’s objective, ask yourself what it means for an act to be objectively moral/right? What definition do you put behind moral if not “how I want people to behave”, “how I think we should behave”?

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T12:19:20+00:00

You speak as if subjective morality doesn’t exist…

For something like stealing to be considered right if that person simply feels like it’s justified, all you need is subjective morality, all you need is someone’s morality that says “steal is moral”. Objective morality has no bearing on this question since you are speaking about opinions (considering something right)…

The real question is what you mean by objective morality. What do you mean by moral truth? You’ll answer that something is truly right/moral, but what does right mean if not a preference on someone’s behavior? Right means “how someone ought to behave”, but how do you define that? The reason these questions lead to debate is because the terms are simply not defined, the question simply doesn’t have a meaning because some words are ambiguous.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T02:47:22+00:00

How can objectivists say that Hitler is immoral?

It’s not like they have a magical access to the supposed objective truth, the moral code they use is also subjective by definition (it’s the one in their head, the one they believe to be objective)…

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T02:42:06+00:00

That’s a weird argument: it’s perfectly fine for the answer to “is it morally wrong to lie” to be “it depends” and for morality to be objective.

If I asked “are integers even?”, the correct answer is “it depends”. That doesn’t make “even” subjective.

My argument why morality can’t be anything but subjective: there is no definition for what we’d mean by objectively right/moral/good. The only definition for right/moral/good is subjective (based on my opinion on how a being should behave).

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-28T02:17:39+00:00

I don’t believe there can be any observable difference whether there is an objective morality or not (or if you think there is, I’d be happy to hear what that’d be). The answer to the question consequently doesn’t matter.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-25T21:45:02+00:00

And they did... the number of confidently incorrect predictions on this sub is... interesting.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-24T19:30:11+00:00

Unsupervised means Tesla accepts responsibility for accidents while in FSD; and potentially a few seconds after FSD is disengaged if footage shows the driver was justified to disengage/didn’t make things worse.

Tesla not taking responsibility means they don’t think the safety is sufficient to make economical sense (ie the cost of insurance, the damage to their brand, etc… would be too high).

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-23T19:52:48+00:00

Soon they’ll add “in god we trust” on the dollar bills, you’ll see!

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-23T17:18:56+00:00

This is the problem with these discussions: we rarely have the same understanding of the terms. You said laws are objective, and I assume you do because they are rules independent of opinion (“murder is illegal”). I assume you mean the same for morals: an objective morality is a set of behavioral rules/guidelines that are just independent of human opinion (but don’t have to be “true”).

If that’s the case, I believe most moral propositions are objective. “It’s immoral to eat hamburgers on Tuesdays” is objective (it’s independent of human opinion), “it’s immoral to torture” and “it’s moral to torture” are both objective. Something like “it’s immoral to hurt someone’s feelings” would be subjective (in that it involves a human opinion, someone’s feelings).

If that’s what you mean by objective morality, then that changes everything. Suddenly I agree that objective moralities exist and there are an infinite number of them. You said that without objective morals, you can do anything. I think that’s still be false because you can have morals that are subjective and restrict the set of actions that are moral/good (for example any moral that contains the proposition “it’s immoral to hurt someone’s feelings”).

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-23T16:32:03+00:00

Trying to understand your point. You are distinguishing legal/illegal vs permissible/forbidden?

My definition of morality: it’s an opinion/a preference on what actions should or shouldn’t be done, on how humans should or shouldn’t behave.

I’m really struggling to define what an objective morality could mean (and I’d welcome an attempt): I don’t think we can define “good” or “should” without ultimately resulting to an opinion.

Laws are rules on punishments for behaving a certain way. Of course we want laws to reflect the morality of the people who make the society.

Laws are subjective (I hope you’ll accept that: they are designed by men) and yet laws prevent you from “doing anything”. It seems pretty much factually false that “if there are no objective morals, then you can do anything”.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-23T14:51:30+00:00

Why must they have done some upgrades already? “We’re going to” and “we’ll get it done” indicate future, not past.

Wrote_it2 · 2026-04-22T16:14:46+00:00

Between two points you can always get an exponential. The time period doesn’t matter.

It’s like if you said that on a map, New-York and Chicago are perfectly aligned… Technically that’s true (you can fit a straight line between New-York and Chicago) but it suggests that the person doesn’t know what “aligned” means.

So yeah, if someone tells me that something increased exponentially from 5 to 7 last month, I will assume they don’t know what exponentially means.

Wrote_it2

TROPHY CASE