Search results

It's hard enough being a decent comedian in your own language. And it's an art that doesn't translate at all. So just the fact that he can pull an English audience means he's doing something right. But this illustrates exactly what we talked about in some other thread the other day. When this...

That is really well written. Not performed that great but the writing in inspired. This totally belongs in the "making fun of religion" thread though :D

From now on I don't read anything you paste or link to longer than a a few lines. When you paste two pages of text I have no idea what you are trying to say with it and it's not your thought process anyway.

I'm sorry, but this contradicts the meaning of "objective". I wish you had discovered this problem sooner and I wouldn't have had to ask the same question again and again. Is that so? What other, fact based approaches do you suggest?

I agree :D

But another human being thinks a car is more important than some child who has to work in poor conditions. We need some facts to convince this person that he's wrong. Show me those facts. Otherwise it's just your opinion against his.

No, but which facts say those things are more important than a nice car, for example?

But you haven't shown me facts that say humans are more important than products.

For what it's worth I don't accept this "read this link, it makes the argument for me" tactic. It's like school, if you can't explain what you did, you're not passing the test.

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!! It cannot be!! I have never seen a stronger impose his rules on a weaker :eek: :eek: It cannot be! It is impossible!! Seriously, JuveRev, how naive can you get?

We are looking for facts. Show me the facts that demonstrate this.

If you remember, objectivity is about facts. So what are the facts that say child labor is wrong? What are the facts that say children are more important than cheap products? Show me these facts.

So how do we find out which one is correct? How? How did we discover this? And how do we know that our conclusion was correct?

Okay, let me put it this way. If there is this objective morality of yours, is it discoverable by us? If yes, how? If not, how does it help us?

What do you mean we don't have to? What is it worth if we can't discover it? If say Israel and Palestine are both claiming to be morally just and you say "there is objective morality, but we don't have to discover what it is", then how do we decide what to do about the conflict?

But anyway, if there is objective morality and in some particular case we cannot agree on what it is, how do we discover it?

lol you are deluding yourself. What makes you say that it is wrong? I'll tell you what. Your feelings. Your own instinct of morality. You consider a question like racism, ask the question to yourself, and the answer comes back. It's immoral. Who's telling you this? Your feelings.

But how is it objective if we cannot agree on it? This is what objective means: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective&db=* So if we know the facts of a certain event in history, how do we determine if the event was moral without being "influenced by personal feelings...

I want to return to this because I never understood your conclusion.

Say what? But which one is the moral one then?