Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post

So which is it, shitbert? Did you arrive at your moral philosophy on your own or did you co-opt it from some source? It seems you're simply afraid to openly discuss your ideas, and hide behind a layer of obfuscation and mystique. This may work on some normgroid but here on these boards we have powerful intellectual wizards ready to cast Eldritch lightning on your balls. It's plainly obvious that your entire ideology you've so carefully crafted over the years is nothing more than an attempt at rationalizing primal fears and impulses. I've already gone over your desperate clinging to life so I will spare everyone that ordeal. Your beasts are a rather clear example of this, however. The idea of primal beast entities that one must not just avoid becoming but be able to recognize and avoid when they manifest in others is obviously a child-like "fear of monsters" or "fear of the dark" which you never grew out of and seek to justify with logic. Once again, your "moral" foundation is nothing but putting a pseudo-intellectual wig on the proverbial emotion and impulse pig. You are an animal, and rather than striving to be human you chose to roll around in the mud like the pig you are. You have no morals. Animals cannot have morals. All you have is emotion and impulse. Admit it, bucko. Quit lying to yourself and everyone else when it is plainly obvious that this is the case.

It seems as though your point is that animals are immoral.
You don't have to go much further than that.
Your position is that morality doesn't exist.
Then you describe my moral framework, which, by doing so recognizes it's existence.
It doesn't really even seem like you take issue with my moral framework and spend most of your time doing nothing more describing it and hoping that means something.

Ah, animals are amoral. Doesn't really require me to change my statement but the clarification is nice.

Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post

My point is not that animals are immortal but rather that animals lack morality. They are morally neutral. You, being an animal, don't have morality. I take issue with you pretending as though your animal instincts and impulses are somehow morality.

Moreover, never once did I say morality doesn't exist. I will put forth the fact that morality is exclusively for sapient human beings. It's evident that you do not fall into this category. You are a beast, you are even by your own retarded half baked ideology a sub-human entity who should not be held in any higher regard than one might hold an amoeba.

If morality is for sapient human beings and not for animals then what are humans if not animals?

sure. i'm fairly sure that humans are animals.

Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post

And what leads you to this laughable conclusion?

Because humans share characteristics of animals.

Hopefully we aren't having a discussion on ontology now because that hardly seems relevant.

Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post

Humans also share characteristics of urine and feces. That doesn't make humans urine and feces.

ok looks like we do have to go into ontology.
It depends upon what level of precision you care about.
If you say fish live in water that will generally be true but inaccurate for the things that live in the water which would not be called fish for other reasons.
That's the matter of precision, if you try to be too precise or vague with the terminology you risk considering everything a fish or nothing a fish.
When humans are classified as animals it is done because humans share ancestry with other things that are called animals.
This gets complicated when you consider things like mycelium which are not often considered animals but share close enough ancestry with humans that defining the category by ancestry mycelium would have to be considered animals.
With the question of morality and how that differentiates humans from animals the ways morality is expressed such as through law enforcement and warfare is shared with other animals making morality something that could create a subcategory of animals but not at the exclusion of everything except for humans.

Any other questions that require more effort to respond to than to pose in your dishonorable effort to assume you'll be correct if only you could just exhaust me?

On the matter of humans and feces both being considered in the same category there are categories in which humans and feces would both exist.
You admit as much in recognizing humans and feces share characteristics but feces fails to be categorized as a mammal, a subcategory of animals humans exist within, being that it doesn't have mammary glands.

fuck, now we have to get into normative ethics. I hate this.
Yes I use this classification scheme not because it is any more true than any other classification scheme but that it is the system I arbitrarily decide to use.
This is the case with all communication and all definitions.
Something that appears objective like mathematics rests upon many axioms that are arbitrary but we use mathematics because it's easiest to tempt people to believe it.
You take pride in being disabused of all temptation so realistically something like biology would be difficult for you to submit to.
I only pervert the english language to make specific points.
Were i to do it accidentally like you there would be less information.
The aesthetic principal of understanding the rules so that you can break them creatively rather than neglecting the rules because you're lazy.

you better not make me bring out the world as will and representation.
I know you will because that's how these conversations always go but fuck you in advance for being so predictable.

YOU FUCKING CUNT, I KNEW YOU WOULD DO THIS.
Ugh, ok so the nature of perception is that you can only interact with the world based on a representation of the world you create in your own mind.
Most of these are automatic and guided by hormones but in order to interact with the world collectively conscious frameworks are made that can be shared.
These systems are not any more true than any other systems because they originate from the mind and not reality but they work better than nothing.
Read Schopenhauer you daft fuck.

Very well then, you don't want me to consider your perspective so i won't.

Wait but if I was to respect your insecurity about your perception I would be treating it as real.
Your concern for exclusively objective reality means I have to say you're wrong even if I don't believe that myself.