Robert Adamant - go to this post

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.

So, you admit that I am correct, and that you're just making everything up. Great. I rest my case.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

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.

We're not discussing perception, though. We're talking about the fiber of reality in regards to a particular topic. Perception is irrelevant. One should be able to explain one's own viewpoints in a way which is grounded in objective reality which everyone else can observe. Otherwise, there is no way to confirm the veracity of one's statements. Reality is not subjective, it is objective. The lens of perception is irrelevant in the face of the same plainly observable reality and that is the platform on which we must operate.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

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

No, you're failing to comprehend my post, likely due to a deficit in intellect. Perspective is not the topic nor is it the object of discussion. We aren't discussing perspective but rather the objective reality of the situation. In this case you are being asked to justify your statement "humans are animals" regardless of what my perspective is on the topic. In short, I am asking for the basis in objective reality for your perspective. It's clear that this is something which simply doesn't exist. You can't justify your statement because it's arbitrary, having no basis in reality. So, you're a simple cretin who can't explain his own viewpoints let alone arrive intentionally at a reasonable viewpoint.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Then don't say your perspective doesn't matter, it invalidates everything you say.

Once again, we are not discussing perspective. Never once did I say anything about perspective. It seems you're arguing in circles because you're too cowardly to bring the topic back to your defense of your viewpoint, as you are unable to defend it. I have won. You may have the last word as it seems that is very important to you, so long as you concede my victory and your defeat. Your viewpoints are baseless, arbitrary, and you are an animal with no morality. Trying to codify animalistic impulses and emotions is not morality.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Ok so you do hold the position that specifically morality does not exist for me.
The validity of a statement isn't proven by your ability to continue to hold it.
You have won the title of random person who claims one other random person is amoral.
This claim will likely never be all that groundbreaking as it is made constantly and can't ever really be verified.

The validity of my statement has been proven, though. Your basis for morality consists of nothing more than codification of instinct and thus you are mistaking your own impulses for morality. Anyone can clearly see that the morality you've presented in your own defense simply does not constitute morality. If you've really studied morality as defined by various philosophers and cultures, you should know that your own so-called morality doesn't fit the bill for what morality is.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

For our next competition we will see who can believe that aliens don't exist the longest.
Are you interested in competing? I'm not and likely no one else will challenge you but you're free to compete.

Aliens have been proven to exist and anybody who claims otherwise will simply fall victim to public ridicule. It would be a pointless endeavor.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

>your basis of morality
you admit I have a basis of morality and still attempt to say I am amoral.

>your own so-called morality doesn't fit the bill for what morality is.
Yeah that's what happens when you figure things out yourself.
Perhaps you have never been creative ever in your life which would make such a state foreign to you.

No, your basis for morality is flawed to the point that you have only the illusion of morality. You claim that you "figure things out yourself" yet earlier you proudly exclaimed that you did research and based your ideas upon the works and writings of others. So which is it? I've seen nothing but contradictions and illogical proclamations from you this entire time. It seems you're incapable of holding your side of an argument. Log out, nigga. You're cooked.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Like there's no way you're saying anything meaningful about morality to say that one specific framework is suspicious on the grounds that it was made by an animal.
Perhaps if you were to criticize a broader or more established system of morality greater discussion could be had.

Why should a system of morality devised by an animal be taken into acceptance? Indeed, one of the distinctions between man and beast is morality. Hence, animals cannot, by virtue of definition, formulate morality. Therefore, if you are an animal, anything you put forth which you call morality is not, in fact, morality. This seems rather easy to grasp upon cursory examination of this conversation.