"You are the Joker of mafia players" - Oversoul
"last time I was scum with Firebringer
his first post in the scum PT was "yes I rolled scum!"
I decided to post "haha just don't post that in the main thread", but to get up to date on the main thread first.
His first post in the main thread was "yes I rolled scum!" -popsofctown
"You are the Joker of mafia players" - Oversoul
"last time I was scum with Firebringer
his first post in the scum PT was "yes I rolled scum!"
I decided to post "haha just don't post that in the main thread", but to get up to date on the main thread first.
His first post in the main thread was "yes I rolled scum!" -popsofctown
Different people have different views of what good and evil are.
when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?
Different people have different views of what good and evil are.
when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?
because "good" is a subjective word that statement is subjective
"is" is a factual word; it is Monday because of the generally evident agreement that this day is a "Monday".
In post 9, Psyche wrote:when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle.
Though with time zones then both can technically be right. (And pretty much what MarioManiac4 said)
Also, charity depends on how the money is spent. And the rules depend on the person.
This is my life now
Once you have 100 posts, click here to go to the page to join the speakeasy group.
Different people have different views of what good and evil are.
when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?
because "good" is a subjective word that statement is subjective
"is" is a factual word; it is Monday because of the generally evident agreement that this day is a "Monday".
This is just begging the question. Good and evil are subjective because good and evil are subjective?
Different people have different views of what good and evil are.
when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?
because "good" is a subjective word that statement is subjective
"is" is a factual word; it is Monday because of the generally evident agreement that this day is a "Monday".
This is just begging the question. Good and evil are subjective because good and evil are subjective?
no the statement "charity is good" is subjective because "good" is subjective but whatever.
There is no universally agreed upon definition of "good." "good" is basically something we approve of in our flawed opinions. No person's "good" is better than anothers.
In post 15, MarioManiac4 wrote:There is no universally agreed upon definition of "good."
So "good" depends on what humans agree on, rather than an external objective truth(let us set aside the question of what that truth is for now)?
In a world where it was universally agreed on that sexism is good, is sexism suddenly good?
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 16, Accountant wrote:So "good" depends on what humans agree on, rather than an external objective truth(let us set aside the question of what that truth is for now)?
Yah. Though other life forms can have good or bad. But people tend to focus on humans.
This is my life now
Once you have 100 posts, click here to go to the page to join the speakeasy group.
In post 16, Accountant wrote:So "good" depends on what humans agree on, rather than an external objective truth(let us set aside the question of what that truth is for now)?
Yah. Though other life forms can have good or bad. But people tend to focus on humans.
I see! That is an interesting point of view. I do enjoy learning about what thoughts others have. Is it purely morality that is subjective, or are physical laws subjective also?
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 15, MarioManiac4 wrote:There is no universally agreed upon definition of "good."
So "good" depends on what humans agree on, rather than an external objective truth(let us set aside the question of what that truth is for now)?
In a world where it was universally agreed on that sexism is good, is sexism suddenly good?
In society, the word "good" does indeed turn towards meaning what the majority thinks is true. Therefore, this would be the accepted meaning of "good", yes.
Personally, I believe that good things have no, or very sparce, physical and mental pain and prevent physical and mental pain. My votes in society reflect this. Everyone else's vote reflects their opinion. Generally democracy is the best current way to limit "physical" and "mental" pain
as long as it is a true democracy where no group is unable to vote and anyone gets a say.
What if more than 60% of the people in a democracy believes in a law that would cause great hurt to the other 40%?
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 19, Annadog40 wrote:Well, physics exists. Philosophy doesn't remove gravity. Though maybe someday with advanced tech, can work around the laws.
Ooh! I like where you're going with this!
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 21, Accountant wrote:What if more than 60% of the people in a democracy believes in a law that would cause great hurt to the other 40%?
I wouldn't like that. I would welcome them to another democracy that didn't provide these restrictions.
If there was none then I would go to the country where there was the most opposition to the new law and help protest and change people's views in order to provide a safe area where oppressive laws do not exist.
Alternatively we could try to talk to these people and explain logically what these laws would do.
What if the democracy resulted in a law being passed which prevented people from leaving?
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.