Not remotely what you claimed, and it makes no sense in the context of the discourse, and is equally dubious an assertion of course, and of course still does not change the fact my original response was not a straw man and did not shift the goal posts. if you want to see goal posts shifting you are doing it in almost every post now.
So for clarity as your spinning this one each time, I have never denied or rejected the existence of love or compassion as you claimed, only refuted your claim that it is an objective basis for morality, since it is clearly a subjective choice to base morality on this.
Thatâs still not a universal value? Youâre simply offering a vague hypothetical, based on your subjective view of what best serves morality.
I never said it was universal, so thatâs another lame straw man, the fact remains it is a basis for subjective morality, and what I or you feel is, or is not moral, is still not the point, why you keep failing to grasp this isnât clear. The point is that what we assert is moral is a subjective opinion.
Whatever we subjectively decide of course, as has been explained, using the negative of the word doesnât change this obviously?
So you have nothing beyond the bare claim then, thought so. My age remains irrelevant, and again anyone can see it stated in any number of posts on here. So again I can only hope this pretence that repeating the age I have given freely many times is somehow supernatural prescience, is just a lame attempt at humour? Youâd do well to drop the pretence that you have done anything beyond mere repetition of a fact I have shared publicly here many times.
Still not what omniscience means, and one would necessarily need to be omniscient in order to epistemologically justify claiming to know an immutable truth.
I know this already, it was you who claimed to reject the notion of relativistic ethics not me, again you are making contradictory statements.
Iâd agree, but my opinion is as subjective as yours, and Hitlerâs.
The assertion one set of morals is superior to another is subjective, it cannot be otherwise.
So your assertion has gone from being wrong to being irrelevant, since this would still be a subjective choice for the basis of oneâs morality.
A dictionary obviously, and this is irrelevant to your original claim quoted here again for clarity:
That assertion is demonstrably incorrect, regardless how you âfeelâ about the word.
The heart is a pump made of muscle, and what it experiences of emotions is limited to the influence of our brains.
You may consider the moon to be made of cheese if it lights your bulb, but the facts do not support your claim at all.
No it is not. It is accurate to say they are experience by the brain, and that the brain influences to heart.
Hallucinations are generally indistinguishable from reality, but the perception is not real, so if you know this why would you form beliefs based on any hallucination?
Exactly.
Thank you, I was tiring of repeating myself.
It is not an example of an objective basis for morality, and as I have gone to great pains to demonstrate, love is not one emotion as you have implied, but a complex range of emotions, even the target of our love is equally complex, and influences our subjective moral decisions. Thus your continuing assertion that love can be an objective basis for morality is wrong, as we how we experience it is relative, and how and when we apply it is also relative.
Nope, the pain receptors are in your crotch, and transmit the stimuli to your brain, itâs your brain that interprets them as pain.
An argument from personal incredulity fallacy, the facts however are again at odds with what you are asserting. Our brains experience the pain, all the receptors do is transit the stimuli to our brains, if your brain were unable to experience pain no amount of castration or âpainâ stimuli would be experienced at all.
