In this thread you must argue coherently and cogently for a view that you do not hold.
Pick up on Anons that you disagree with and debate them.
The only way to be sure you are right is to win.
>God and religion is not needed to form an eternal sense of justice, one's own genetic survival and the projection of self onto state and culture is sufficient to support moral behaviour and a sense of eternal justice out of duty to the following generations. In this context you do not have to follow an eternal dogmatic justice, only follow what is within your best interests within the genetic and cultural sense. This would work because people dedicated to duty in this sense would not follow a path in life what was selfish, since that would not be conducive to the survival of your genetics or your culture which was handed down to you.
I don't really have anything that's coming to mind, but that's a great cat, OP. It's amazing.
Zachary Jenkins
I cannot falsify this because I cannot see it.
Nathan Powell
Can you even compete?
Cameron Harris
My dick would pleasure your father
Kayden Adams
This thread is 10/10 and will get lots of replies
Connor Williams
that whole paragraph is easy as pie to rebute:
>justice
subjective
>morality
subjective
Nathan Perez
R A R E A R E R R E R A E R A R
Kayden Sanchez
The holocaust did not happen according to the common narrative. The numbers were forged as evidenced by Red Cross numbers. Jews were never gassed as Zyklon was used for delousing. Attacks on German supply lines caused resources to dwindle, inmates to starve, and lice to bite.
Andrew Moore
>didnt happen
yesh, except for the ~6 million corpses
too bad so sad
Caleb Powell
you mean the ones that were never found
too bad right haha
Michael Diaz
You have to explain yourself. Throwing words out there means nothing.
it is arguable that genetic survival is the only unifying, humanistic duty and act. All societies surround the notion of survival. You must provide an example of subjectivity, explain why this is true and everything else is not, then say why it is just for it to be so.
Asher Roberts
tldr
David King
I'm a faggot.
Jordan Collins
when they are ashes they as easier to hide, much easier
Nicholas Thompson
>You have to explain yourself. Throwing words out there means nothing.
the words have meaning
Julian Turner
Yeah, but the ovens have no ability to process those corpses.
Aaron Edwards
human bodies were easily reduced to ash with late 30's furnace ability
Luis Peterson
>It is all subjective. >Elaborate >I don't have to explain myself!
This is literal SJW logic. If you cannot elaborate on your points then do not argue. What you said was a statement at best, a claim at worst. Without any context at all it means nothing at all.
Thomas Baker
No shit, dumbass. But 1) they required resources that could be used for other things and 2) they didn't burn fast enough.
Caleb Morgan
>words have meaning What if you're just making the same 26 different kinds of clicks and whisltes over and over to attract your potential social desires, what if those sounds have different assigned meanings to other individuals, and what if that is the root cause of individuality? If the body is making the same sounds in sync with another body, how is it differentiable at all? mere atoms vibrating in a greater structure. the body and individual are thus inseperably entanged. In theory all identites could exist in one body, varying by any dimensional parameter, in this example, time. Pleisosynchronicity differentiates the individul from the continuum, the structure that are perfectly syncronised are to be considered universal and unweilding to change. the rest are sorted by their lag time into varying constructs such as the self and the other.
what if anything outside those sounds represented a negative result, ie: the apparent void of space? language becomes less complex than a bird call, an all-in your mind concept. An adaptation to the true lack of a meanful existence.
Anthony Gray
>hey required resources that could be used for other things
of course, but instead they used them for creamotoriums
>they didn't burn fast enough.
they burned several together and had enough furnaces to take enough time with each batch
Samuel Hill
"subjective" in this context is as simple in meaning as breathing
Aaron Long
Thats one derpy looking cat
Joseph Nguyen
>the body and individual are thus inseperably entanged. I
p.s. there is no entanglement the body IS the individual i.e. we dont "have" bodies, we _are_ bodies
Levi Adams
probably a very nice and fun and relaxing luvvy-duvvy purr machine
Hudson Rogers
you are simply stating a medium of information flow and not any particular unit of information.
Camden Lopez
Benis xdd
Bentley Parker
how does information leak from the body, if it is simply the individual? are half of one's memories simply backdrops? scenery that reminds one of a particular mode of speech?
Justin Phillips
ok doesnt change fact of subjectivity
Benjamin Bailey
>how does information leak from the body, if it is simply the individual? are half of one's memories simply backdrops? scenery that reminds one of a particular mode of speech?
ha yes, violently dynamic on the micro, and below, scale
still it is what it is at any moment
Christopher Jackson
this is fun. objectively.
Jacob Williams
*AH yes
Hunter Campbell
nope also subjective
Colton Butler
>of course, but instead they used them for creamotoriums Why would they do that? >they burned several together and had enough furnaces to take enough time with each batch It would literally take longer for more bodies in an oven. Twice as much material material needs to burn.
Julian Perez
ok i will bite yes it is a unit of information it is metadata on your sermons that they are factually subjective they are metaphorical houses of brick they are only objective if every brick is subjective, which they are all not
Brayden Campbell
>of course, but instead they used them for creamotoriums
to get rid of the jews, to not poison ground water
>It would literally take longer for more bodies in an oven.
not, less
>Twice as much material material needs to burn.
nope less
Mason Stewart
Aha! So you believe that the universe has scalar properties, ie it varies in magnitude but all directions are functionally identical? How can you write something like this when numbers are only a theory? youtube.com/watch?v=qs26qv6C-38 pls educate urself
Luke Roberts
>ie it varies in magnitude but all directions are functionally identical?
no one said that
>How can you write something like this when numbers are only a theory?
no perfectly, absolutely deterministic fact not theory
>How can you write something like this when numbers are only a theory?
and yet, i wrote it
>pls educate urself
im not interested in further subjections
Samuel Cox
Forceful rape (not drugging) should be 100% legal. This will remove the artificial value placed on vagina and dismantle every stupid ass movement from welcoming rapefugees to feminism. Women will instantly snap back into their natural role in society and stay with their man who provides protection for her. Western nations will immediately ban entry to rapefugees and get rid of them because men will not want all these competing rapists coming after their women. Pregnancy rates will increase with the strongest males impregnating more women and this will increase the population of white people. Western society will thrive again. Women will stay home and raise kids because it's safer for them and the two income cost of living will be corrected. Single income families will become the norm again.
Gabriel Torres
>to get rid of the jews, to not poison ground water elaborate. THe cost of a bullet is .25c. The cost of the coals needed to burn costs significantly more. However, instead of costing the Nazis money logically the inmates would be slaves. If you burned two bodies you'd need twice as much coals because instead of 140lbs, you have 280 lbs to burn. And, since you now have double the weight, at the rate of one oven, it will still take twice as long to burn. Try to prove me wrong >protip: you can't
Julian Rivera
aww, cute kitty! Now for an argument in favor of religion.
According to a popular folktale, Muezza (or Muʿizza) (Arabic: معزة) was the Islamic prophet Muhammad's favorite cat.
It is told that Muhammad awoke one day to the sounds of the Adhan, the Muslim daily call to prayer. Preparing to attend, he began to dress himself; however, he soon discovered his cat Muezza sleeping on the sleeve of his prayer robe. Rather than wake her, he used a pair of scissors to cut the sleeve off, leaving the cat undisturbed. On perhaps a separate occasion, upon returning from the mosque, Muhammad received a bow from Muezza. He then smiled and gently stroke his beloved cat three times, promising her a special place in heaven and bestowing the ability for cats to land on all fours.
Levi Sanchez
it is my subjective opinion that the density of information in text must have a corresponding increase in mass. the text is dark on a light background because it is drawing information from the field. glyphs are simple naked singularities, representations of the 26 sporadic groups that do not follow any coherent algebraic pattern applicable in group theory.
you do believe in groups, don't you? entatitivism is observed to be quite a rational philosophy. shit penis queef fuck.
Daniel Rodriguez
>Try to prove me wrong >protip: you can't
yeah ok bud
woops, its also vice versa
*shrug*
Ethan Bell
You realizing that not forming subjectivity as the only objective truth, then you are also subjective and whatever you say is irrelevant.
It is to say nothing can be truly objectivity because of subjective perspective, but without clarifying that it is the only objective true thing, it is a meaningless statement of dismissal.
If subjectivity is then absolute, then the subject is too, and there is an infinite doubt.
Lincoln Scott
No more cementaries.
Corpses should be thrown out on the fields to yield better harvests.
Our ways of shielding ourselves from our own dirty loundry is unsustainable.
Would be cool with all the spookie skellies laying about.
Would also give rise to a new wave of vieled threats based on agriculture.
Blake Garcia
then what is your definition of a change in consistency with a change in magnitude? you said on a micro scale, as if to limit such behaviour to realms outside of your visual prowess. it could be a coping mechanism for your lack of strong belief in your own ideal. "I can't see it nobody can see it but it's there".
the last sentence might have been better placed at the beginning of your post to prevent such redundancies as reading this.
Gabriel Ramirez
>it is my subjective opinion that the density of information in text must have a corresponding increase in mass.
if the particles have mass do you mean the data transmition hardware? whats in our brains? whats on our screens? or what in our computers memory or hard drive?
>the text is dark on a light background because it is drawing information from the field.
flipping a lightswitch does not chance its weight
magnetic polar objects and light emitters do not change mass when states are, flipped/etc
unless electrons are added
>entatitivism is observed to be quite a rational philosophy.
subjective
>shit penis queef fuck.
ok.
Benjamin Martin
!! bath them in chlorine first to remove stank and bacteria, then we can simply use the population's excess sodium levels to convert the poison into harmless salt as it enters their bodies
nothing bad could happen, since all modern humans are part of some kind of registry/hive or another. if an extra body were found it could be quickly identified. a method to prevent such intrusions and investigations may be quicklime. thus, the individual is more polite to neighbours and government alike.
Gavin Gonzalez
>You realizing that not forming subjectivity as the only objective truth,
subjective
>then you are also subjective and whatever you say is irrelevant.
we have apparatus to acount for human perception deviations which eliminates all of those doubts
>It is to say nothing can be truly objectivity because of subjective perspective,
one can choose to be forever caught at the paranoia of "am i a brain in a vat? how can i ever know whether?" OR to move past it
>If subjectivity is then absolute, then the subject is too,
non sequitur not necessarily there are two special cases, one moreso than the other do you know what the two cases are?
>and there is an infinite doubt.
not necessarily
Dylan Diaz
>in this thread you must argue coherently and cogently for a view that you do not hold.
>pic related is the sum of my argument and the belie I held is that I don't reply to gay slide OPs
Jason Morgan
Looks like nobody has a counter argument to legalizing rape.
Josiah Gomez
agreed
Joseph Harris
you can't prove any switches or hardware was involved. my screen is the galactic background radation, and so is yours. just from a slightly different angle. this is purely about the emission of light from a particular angle and its accepted entitative properties.
Isaac Rivera
>then what is your definition of a change in consistency with a change in magnitude?
it is a continuum, meaningful quantization can be made down to planck units
> you said on a micro scale, as if to limit such behaviour to realms outside of your visual prowess. it could be a coping mechanism for your lack of strong belief in your own ideal. "I can't see it nobody can see it but it's there".
thats why we have apparatus that lets perceive at these scales, and with greater accuracy & precision than the best eyes can regarding macro objects
>the last sentence might have been better placed at the beginning of your post to prevent such redundancies as reading this.
im not interested in subjections....
outside of this thread
Jaxon Fisher
I believe in the full integration of Syrian refugees into society. They are a war torn country and many of these families are just looking for someone to provide them with a warm and loving home so they can reintegrate back into society, no matter how long it takes as they have been in an area of constant power struggles.
Blake Roberts
corpses and crops dont work that way, and certainly not together lol
Isaac Harris
>I believe in the full integration of Syrian refugees into society.
thats nice but your fuzzy feelings cannot trump my right to not have an infestation forced into my community/nation that lowers my quality of life in many ways
Luke Brooks
Muslims are genuinely good people. Sharia law is just misunderstood.
Kevin Torres
logical fallacies, ahoy!
Luke Parker
You don't even need fuel to burn bodies. The bodies are fuel.
Zachary Wilson
"half a plank unit" your universe trembles at this forbidden concept, yet you observe it without dismay. explain yourself.
You believe perception is inherent scalar in its properties? that all sense organs have physical limitations. in a universe of wave-particle duality, who is to say that is is not simply the structure of these appendages that cause such perceptions, as a funtion of time?
Isaiah Reed
What's your definition of good?
Charles Carter
There is no non sequitur here, if all is subjective, then everything IS in doubt. Machines do not account for the removal of doubt, since sense data is subjective. You will then say that you can measure it, but then you must interpret it with empirical faculties, which are subjective. You catch yourself in a loop of doubt that CANNOT be overcome by anything, since nothing is meaningfully true.
You have also derailed the conversation to the original point without specifying why, or how it has any meaning. You expect others to fill in the gaps for you, without laying out your explanations.
You wish to prove the original statement not true by framing it as a perception one person can have, and another may not by invoking doubt, but it is a scorched earth policy with no policy and direction.
Citing 'definition' is not sufficient, and you lose the argument if you cannot convince.
Dominic Scott
>Muslims are genuinely good people. Sharia law is just misunderstood. Sad that there are so many women who believe this.
Elijah Hall
emaciated jews do not burn like tea candles.
Luke James
OP is a faggot
William Rivera
>Interesting political discussion is sliding.
Jack Flores
He won't explain anything, because to explain anything to invoke some semblance of certainty or conviction.
Bentley Ramirez
>your universe trembles at this forbidden concept, yet you observe it without dismay. explain yourself.
no people do, metaphorically
>yet you observe it without dismay. explain yourself.
you cannot manufacture such an obligation :)
>You believe perception is inherent scalar in its properties? that all sense organs have physical limitations. in a universe of wave-particle duality, who is to say that is is not simply the structure of these appendages that cause such perceptions, as a funtion of time?
you counter-productively try to blend philosophy with physics
there exists no evidence, even theoretical to suggest such perception extremes
therefore, non-falsifiable, and entirely vain to discuss
Luis Morris
it's actually physically painful to keep up these arguments. I mean wtf am I even saying :s
Josiah Foster
Originally they did just shoot them, but then even the most hardcore SS troopers started to have doubts, mental breakdowns, etc. Also it was much cheaper to produce bullets only for combat use.
Isaac Thompson
that which is morally right; righteousness
Oy, it's true!
Not an ⭐argument⭐
Aiden Johnson
are you not going to percieve an end of time? don't you believe in death?
in such a case, in a quantised universe, it's possible we could make a subjective agreement. if you're not an immigrant of course.
John Gomez
>if all is subjective,
no one said that
>Machines do not account for the removal of doubt,
nope
> since sense data is subjective.
math is not subjective
>but then you must interpret it with empirical faculties,
same
>meaningfully true.
subjective
>You expect others to fill in the gaps for you,
you are more than intelligent enough for me to actually waste time filling in those gaps, what goes in them should be a given
>You wish to prove the original statement not true
no, true, AND subjective in that that is the state of the particles in YOUR mind that create and reach and hold that conclusion
>Citing 'definition' is not sufficient, and you lose the argument if you cannot convince.
every debate is never about convincing the opponent, but rather the audience, or at the minimum, for the practice of doing so
we are using one contextual use of subjective here: the quintessence of which is the exact state of matter and energy in the brain of the person who reaches, asserts, and holds a given conclusion/argument
all underlying physics are objective
Logan Robinson
>are you not going to percieve an end of time? don't you believe in death?
goalposts
>unrelated but still curious: Do you have any qualms
never qualms about physics, nor math, ever
>Not an ⭐argument⭐
EXACTLY it is to show that yours isnt either, so we then return to square 1, instead of vainly proceeding along on YOUR disguise, but still NON, argument
Ian Reyes
The persistence of "your" genetic material is not a duty, it's just what people in fact care about, that doesn't mean they *should* care about it
In any case genes act to ensure their persistence, "you" are just a vehicle. This is why people sacrifice themselves for close family members, because "their" genes will still persist in their kin
Joshua Martinez
>all underlying physics are objective
then all statements are objectively true
Angel James
Explain to me how Trump can win with 34% of the women's vote, 20% Hispanics, and 2% black vote while currently being crushed in both electoral and the popular vote?
Andrew Hernandez
assuming a hard materialistic universe
Jose Wilson
>it is to show that yours isnt either, so we then return to square 1, instead of vainly proceeding along on YOUR disguise, but still NON, argument
I've been had!
Gabriel Carter
>you lose the argument if you cannot convince. you also lose the argument if the opponent uses the term "unconvincing".
such wordplay is not deemed undesirable or malicious? The ego is the information through which a language provides a medium of existence?
You know what? fuck it. I lose this one.
Green eggs are safe to eat.
Caleb Clark
noted.
here is your chicken.
Jose Butler
textbook non sequitur
>then all statements are objectively true
ambiguity fallacy, et al given that contextual use of "objective" then yes, of course
but NOT when we use the reciprocal use of "objective" of our chosen contextual use of subjective
Christian Russell
I wanna double team that BCC with her.
Asher Cox
>you lose the argument if you cannot convince.
you linked this post: when that line is from this post:
Justin Nguyen
dont quit lets keep going
p.s.
>The ego is the information through which a language provides a medium of existence?
subjective
> I lose this one.
subjective
Jace Thompson
>implying 98% of black people will vote for hillary
please indicate the number of nonvoters. there are at least three parties involved (trump, female, and neither) possibly 4: people who plan to vote for both under two names.
Tyler Cook
that number includes dead, convicts, non citizen, and imaginary black people as well
Jonathan Wright
one more thing pure curiosity: were you fishing for something i was supposed to natural respond with and didnt, like indignation or memes or ad homs or something?
Christopher Rodriguez
Both posts contain the stated rhetoric.
Jack Barnes
'Us' being a vehicle for them doesn't really change much, I don't think. It's an interesting observation of the self, but I think the argument can still stand with that as a case.
Whether we should or not is the point of the argument. If God exists, it would mean that we ought to, perhaps.
I think that we should because the nature of genes themselves prescribes an ought. If we are them, then we must see the prudence in survival. All people see the prudence of survival, whether it's as other species as a whole, another race as the expense of their own, or theirs and themselves.
Why 'us', specifically, then? i'm not sure I can provide a sufficient answer at the moment. Other than to say than the feelings of obligation are determined.
Colton Thompson
Why is it that fundamental physics is objective, but that which they build is not necessarily? Where does one become the other?
Ryan Ortiz
Fuck off you shill motherfucker. Brainwashed libtard
Elijah Bailey
one is just a quote as yours
>Why is it that fundamental physics is objective, but that which they build is not necessarily? Where does one become the other?
indeed it "becomes" the other in contextual meaning nothing more, nothing less
Michael Scott
in all honesty I hoped you might be autismal enough to have something to say about split-octonions and their practical applications. Mathemagicians are few and far between I guess.
Aaron Reed
By context do you mean convenience? Or specificity of definition?
Please elaborate a little. I enjoy this.
Please read the thread, this is about people arguing for things they do not necessarily agree with. It is about debate skills. In fact it's relevant to the real world if you want to 'red pill' people.
Adrian Rodriguez
haha math is icky
Aaron Anderson
>By context do you mean convenience?
NEVER; as was tried here: >Or specificity of definition?
it is subjective by objectivity of physics :) in that the brains of 2 people (states of all particles and energy) will never be congruent