Anonymous
6/15/2025, 11:42:33 AM
No.24468045
>>24468033
>The Bible says murder is wrong. Self-defense is not murder. God-sanctioned killings of peoples are punitive. You have failed to engage on even a surface level.
Nice subjective interpretation you have there.
>My standard fits my metric better, and you have no standard for telling me otherwise. Whats worse, you dont notice the contradiction even as you type it. If morality is not objective, that's a consistent position; I don't chastise you for merely being subjective, but for being subjective but still trying to morally grandstand, which you immediately continue to do. You are a fucking mongoloid.
I just laid out that if there is such a thing as an objective universe, then a phenomenon that arises in that universe is the that human consciousnesses undergo experiences which carry an objective character of negativity. Certain experiences exist as undesirable, they enter consciousness with the explicit characteristic of evoking a desire to avoid such experiences. Once again, an outside observer describing objective reality could document that this phenomenon takes place. Now, since these experiences are wired into our very sensory apparatus for the purpose of reward or avoidance, they intrinsically carry a goal, an objective, to maximize reward and to avoid pain or discomfort. Morality, if it is to mean anything at all, is the process of negotiation between thinking agents as to create maximum buy-in from participants and to maximize reward to the highest level possible and diminish pain and discomfort as much as possible. This is the very essence of humanity, this is the calling of the philosophical, only a fool would chuck it up and adhere to an invented deity which has been dreamed up in service of an illusory "objective" standard (which even believers interpret each in their own way, reducing it right back to a subjective standard anyway).
>The Bible says murder is wrong. Self-defense is not murder. God-sanctioned killings of peoples are punitive. You have failed to engage on even a surface level.
Nice subjective interpretation you have there.
>My standard fits my metric better, and you have no standard for telling me otherwise. Whats worse, you dont notice the contradiction even as you type it. If morality is not objective, that's a consistent position; I don't chastise you for merely being subjective, but for being subjective but still trying to morally grandstand, which you immediately continue to do. You are a fucking mongoloid.
I just laid out that if there is such a thing as an objective universe, then a phenomenon that arises in that universe is the that human consciousnesses undergo experiences which carry an objective character of negativity. Certain experiences exist as undesirable, they enter consciousness with the explicit characteristic of evoking a desire to avoid such experiences. Once again, an outside observer describing objective reality could document that this phenomenon takes place. Now, since these experiences are wired into our very sensory apparatus for the purpose of reward or avoidance, they intrinsically carry a goal, an objective, to maximize reward and to avoid pain or discomfort. Morality, if it is to mean anything at all, is the process of negotiation between thinking agents as to create maximum buy-in from participants and to maximize reward to the highest level possible and diminish pain and discomfort as much as possible. This is the very essence of humanity, this is the calling of the philosophical, only a fool would chuck it up and adhere to an invented deity which has been dreamed up in service of an illusory "objective" standard (which even believers interpret each in their own way, reducing it right back to a subjective standard anyway).