Hair is the ‘AMOUNT OF COLOR’ you i… silly rat. “Amount! + How much.” I don’t care how you measure the exact color of the cat. It will be different today than it was yesterday. Silly silly rat. Has the Buddha not taught you that you can not put the same foot in the same stream twice. Must you persist in your ignorance? Do you even hear the ignorance eminating from the hole in your face?
As you are attempting to weasel out of the money you now own me, let me help you. You are not even close. Your only escape is to assert that you did not mean ‘exactly’ the same. "That is why I specified ‘EXACT.’ Your escape is to admit that you were speaking hyperbolically and what you meant is the appearance would look the same. This is absolutely nothing like being the same. As you donj’t even have the intelligence to wriggle out of your own bullshit, from the kindness of my own heart, and the fact that I hate seeing dumb animals suffer, I have graciously given youi your out.
The colour is the same. The DNA that encodes the hairs is the same. If not historically, then at least physically. The particles which make the DNA are all identical. The hair is built out of the same amino acids, forming identical proteins reflecting the same exact light at the same frequencies, producing the SAME colours. How would you like to pay, cash or cheque?
The wavelength reflected by the proteins which make up his hairs will be the same tomorrow as it was today, regardless of how much hair he loses. Have you not heard, oh wise one, that a Tiger cannot change his stripes. Again, cash or cheque?
LOL… No silly Rat: They are not built out of the same DNA or the same amino acids. They are built out of similar DNA and similar amino acids. Would you please stop and think. Each cell carries its own DNA. Silly silly ratty. Thigs just aren’t the same. Have you learned nothing at all from your studies.
Talk to any of the many accomplished scientists and scholars available to you on this forum … subatomic particles are “identical”. In fact, there’s an idea floating around there that there may be ONE electron in the entire universe. Be that as it may, the molecules like adenine, tyrosine, cytosine, and guanine that partially make up DNA are all self similar = “identical”.
DNA replicates the same pattens of molecules out of molecules which are “identical”. Who cares if they share different locations in space and time. What does that have to do with their physical identity?
But hey … what would I know about physics. I have, as you say, learned nothing from my studies … whereas you clearly majored in Physics and minored in Buddhist Studies. So look … just send me your personal banking information and I’d be happy to wire the money to you 
Maybe just your Savings Account information. Or chequing … whatever has the most money in it. Be sure to include passwords if applicable.
In the mean time, here’s something to consider.
Now that I’ve got you hooked, I’ll let you in on a little secret… this post is not actually about electrons specifically, it’s about any kind of microscopic particle. Electrons are just one of the simplest well-known examples, so it’s often picked to illustrate the principle of identical particles. The truth is, all subatomic particles of a particular kind are identical with each other. That is, all electrons are the same as each other, all protons are the same as each other, all neutrons are the same. It doesn’t even stop there. What about atoms themselves? Now we have to be careful, because there are different kinds of atoms: Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen, Lead, Neon, Uranium. Each type of atom has a different number of protons, electrons, and neutrons. But once you’ve specified the total number of these 3 components an atom has, individual instances of that type of atom are identical and indistinguishable.
Yep. so it has been said.
Things are rarely the subatomic particles that create them. If you’re interested in the smallest things known to scientists, there’s something you should know. They are extraordinarily ill-behaved. But that’s to be expected. Their home is the quantum world.
Explainer: Quantum is the world of the super small
These subatomic bits of matter don’t follow the same rules as objects that we can see.
You cannot draw a conclusion about the color of a cat by counting the number of electrons in a bit of hair. Get serious.
You have an execrable grasp of language if you think that is remotely what I have said?
I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be sceptical of knowledge, only of absolute or immutable claims.
Once again then, allowing for the possibility of change no matter how unlikely, is not a claim that something will change, or even that it is likely it will change. Astonishingly it seems you really can’t see the difference?
Halleluiah, so allowing for the possibility that an irrefutable fact might “break down” no matter how unlikely the prospect, would make the claim facts can be immutable pretty stupid then, obviously.
Those are still a subjective standard, endlessly telling me what your subjective standard for morality is, is not evidence that morality is or can be objective.
I read every word of your response to this quote from my post two or three times, and could see no relevance to what I posted at all? Do you understand the difference between an irrefutable fact and an immutable claim, if so please explain what you think this difference is. Why is it for example, all scientific facts must remain tentative in the light of new evidence? I mean there are plenty of irrefutable scientific facts, and it is extremely unlikely many of them will be substantially altered let alone reversed, yet science demands they are not and cannot be immutable, why is that do you think?
Nope, the morality will just differ from that subjective standard, also love and compassion are subjective since the Taliban no doubt experience love and compassion, just not in the way you or I have learned to.
Who said it was no more or less justified? Justice is also a subjective standard.
That contradicts your position throughout this entire discourse? Here is an example on this page of you calming something is immutable:
So now you are claiming these are not possible? So maybe you need to clarify which claim you are making, are immutable facts possible or not? I do not believe they are, and also believing something to be immutably true would be the very definition of closed minded of course, not to mention unscientific, as all scientific ideas must remain tentative in the light of new evidence, even irrefutable facts like species evolution, where the likelihood it will be substantially changed or even reversed is as likely the earth will turn out to be flat after all.
The cat’s colour was your example of an immutable truth remember, it turned out it wasn’t even irrefutably true. Something can be irrefutable fact, this does not make it immutable.
Something can be learned and subjective, and no one said morals were necessarily based on a whim, that is yet another straw man claim. All I have pointed out is that they are necessarily subjective.
You’re missing the point, which is that their subjective idea of what is right differs from mine and yours, but both are subjective.
Again a subjective claim, the Nazis thought acting out hatred was right, so do ISIS the Taliban and the KKK. You are again missing the point.
Yes, and the standards are subjective, they cannot be otherwise. The fact theirs differs so drastically rather demonstrates that point.
Sigh, that’s a subjective claim.
Another subjective claim, you’re simply listing subjective morals that differ from your own.
yes it does, since this is precisely what subjective morality is, you have just defined it exactly.
Indeed, but some people hold the subjective opinion that this is acceptable, obviously, and some do not, but they are both subjective moral opinions.
We can keep going around in circles if you like. I’m not getting through to you and you’re not getting through to me. How would you like to end this tedious dance?
I’ve got time. Let’s keep this charades going.
Remaining endlessly ignorant to the objective reality of love and compassion doesn’t make them “subjective” because it’s convenient for you to assert as much. And you were born in ‘65, weren’t you?
Sure. A irrefutable fact is supported by evidence. An immutable claim is one which does not change over time. Eg. Love and compassion are “Universal” values which cannot be confused with other things and which do not change over time.
So the point is that if I “think” something is right, I can go ahead and do it?
Endlessly rejecting examples of universal values which lead to universally immoral actions does not make them, as you endlessly insist, “subjective”.
I am explaining that a vehicle can’t move on flat tires.
And i unequivocally reject your relativist ethics. As I’ve explained, some people are driving their vehicles on flat tires. Ie. some people have shitty values - values of hatred, greed, and indifference.
These shitty values cause them to do shitty things.
Better values upon which to base your actions are love and compassion. Those are “universal” values which do not resemble other things, which do not change over time, and which allow people to conduct themselves morally.
Love and compassion are not subjective values.
This is a straw man, as the existence of love and compassion is not being disputed at all, what you have yet again failed to grasp is that using such emotions for the basis of one’s morality is a subjective decision, as has been explained.
An irrefutable fact is impossible to deny or disprove, whereas something is immutable if it is unable to be changed. The second therefor is an absolute claim, the burden of proof would be epistemologically impossible, this is why science deals in irrefutable facts, but nothing is ever immutable.
No, the point is that thinking something is right or wrong is subjective, and it cannot be otherwise.
They’re not universal values obviously, as the examples I offered amply demonstrated. Since different people have different subjective opinions about what morals should be based on, then they don’t lead to universally moral actions either, again the examples offered demonstrate this unequivocally, so why you’d make such an obviously false claim is baffling?
No you’re simply making subjective claims and failing to offer a single example of something that is objectively moral, as has been demonstrated.
Oh dear…is it possible you don’t see the contradiction there?
Quite possibly, but what we think is shitty is a subjective view, obviously.
Possibly, but this would still be a subjective claim.
No they’re not universal, did the Nazis based their morals on those values, do the Taliban do ISIS? How much love and compassion do you think Christians showed Muslims during the crusades, was love and compassion the basis for the US long and protracted war in Vietnam? Even leaving aside that people would interpret love differently, since it describes a range of human emotions, that would necessarily be influenced by all manner of beliefs, not everyone bases their subjective morality on those ideas, ipso facto they are not universal.
Of course they are, Nazis, or ISIS or Mother Theresia, or the Taliban would have very different notions of what represented love and compassion to me and probably you? Ispo facto they are not universal notions.
However this is moot, as even were they universal ideas, it is still a subjective claim that morality must be based on those notions, and as I have demonstrated not everyone shares that subjective opinion.
1 Like
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … Oh ratty, you are showing your ignorance again. How many books do you imagine have been written about love? Love is not subjective? You poor, blind, suffering, woo-woo believing, dogmatic, do-do pushing loser. You can not demonstrate objective love without making a subjective assertion. (Think about it.)
3 Likes
Precisely, we have been here before, and love remains just a word we use to describe a range of human emotions. Maybe it’s derived from his Buddhist beliefs this blind adherence to the errant notion that love is some sort of absolute, but it certainly is not. The emotions clearly have a survival benefit, or we would have been unlikely to have evolved with them intact.
The same with his endless subjective assertions about morality, as if finding something repugnant suddenly makes his opinion objectively moral. Also I can find actions repugnant and still not find them immoral, I can also find things immoral, but still accept this is just my opinion. Theists and the religious seem to find solace in dogmatic adherence to absolutes, in discourse on morality as with other topics, the idea that morality is relative or subjective seems to terrify them, as if their morals would be meaningless and would evaporate if they accept that they’re subjective.
2 Likes
No. This is a moving of the goalposts. You do not realize that love and compassion are universal values - suitable as foundations for morality. By inserting your limited understanding of these universal values, you hope to gain the upper hand. Thus the straw man goal post shifting.
I obtain knowledge through experience. I understand immutable truths by my own experience. Why should I ever doubt that?
Nope! Your examples don’t mean shit. Second hand drivel poured out through leaky containers.
“Shitty” - as in not “universal”.
No, they did not. Had they, they would not have committed acts of atrocity.
Straw man. Being Christian does not entail anything about understanding love and compassion.
Lol. You’re just lucky the words haven’t been forgotten. The meaning obviously has (to you at least). But, the words are still there. Maybe one day you’ll comprehend the meaning outside of a google search dictionary definition.
Oh. Now I’m a loser? Okay. Fuck you too, asshole. You lonely, decrepit, self aggrandizing geezer.
1 Like
How so?
They’re not, you already claimed several times the Nazis based their morality on hatred, so I think there is a lack of realisation here, but it is not mine.
Indeed, I have never disagreed, but this still remains a subjective view, and again have offered many examples that demonstrate not everyone bases their ideas of right and wrong on these emotions.
I don’t even know what that means, what straw man, how have I shifted the goal posts?
Have you experienced the future, are you omniscient? You’d need both to make an epistemological case that anything was immutable.
The examples of Nazism ISIS or the Taliban don’t share the very values you are claiming are universal, petulantly hurling out pejoratives and bare denials doesn’t change this, nor is it debate of course.
You made two claims, and they roundly contradict each other, here:
Your response makes no sense?
The they’re not universal as you keep insisting are they, obviously.
You claimed love and compassion were universal, did you mean universal except for all the people who don’t use them as the basis for their morality? Dear oh dear, straw man indeed you are funny.
What words? What has that to do with the part of my post you quoted?
Why would I not? Dictionaries are simply a reference tool that reflect common usage, but by all means explain which word(s) you think I have failed to comprehend, and why.
@rat_spit and @Cognostic, quit with the personal attacks.
If I read these incorrectly, and they are actually said with the utmost love and respect for each other, then please indicate as such.
Others, particularly newer posters/lurkers cannot read your minds and haven’t been around long enough to know you.
Well. Maybe I took it too personally. I am a do-do pusher. That’s true 
But I’m NOT a “loser”. I’m … I’m … I’m an alpha male. And you know what, he ruined my morning. Bruised my ego.
Cog knows I love him. I apologize, Cog. 
3 Likes
Because you’re defining love and compassion in terms that suit your argument. I do not agree to the terms you seem to be claiming we’re both using.
Umm … okay. Yeah. The Nazi’s based their immorality on hatred. What’s the problem here? The word morality doesn’t apply to ALL systems of behaviour. Do you believe in the existence of “immorality” at all?
I have experienced the future. The future is “bright”. And if my “omniscient” you mean that my consciousness extends to all realms and dimensions and reaches of the Universe, then yes … that too. Now, am I omniscient ALL THE TIME … well … no. Who has the time to be aware of all things all the time. What a waste of time that would be. I’ve got better things to do than waste my time constantly extending my conscious field across infinite space and time.
The response makes sense when you admit that bad morals emanate from bad intentions which emanate from bad values. Ie. “deficient; perverse; fucked up.”
No. I mean universal in that they spread across the universe.
Those who don’t use them as the basis for their morality will have shitty immorality. Like the Nazis for example.
And your dictionary example of the meaning of “masochism” has proven to be deficient.
There is a strong difference between “tendency” and “sexual disorder”. One admits to masochism as a normalized sexual preference. The other attends to how fucked up and “abnormal” it is.
Here nor there, you will not find the meaning of compassion and love in a dictionary. You will find it in your heart, mind, body, and soul.
I’ve got work to do. Toodles.
How in the hell did you know I was a self-aggrandizing geezer. Have you been talking to Skriten and Tin behind my back? You slimy little rodent. I hope Sheldon keeps raking you over the coals.With deep respect and all my love.
4 Likes