Nope. If I were using only part of it, that "or" would be "and".
Are you saying Science does not demonstrate the existence of something by evidence or argument?
Holy fuck you are a measly little idiot. You are using the word prove and I'm correcting you so you use the definition but not the whole definition but part of it to play pretend that you are not wrong because as a wilfully little ignorant moron you simply cannot ever be wrong.
Well here's the deal little moron, science cannot prove the existence of anything either, it can show evidence of the existence of something but then we are right back where we started from, it's evidence based and not based on proof which is an absolute.
You refuse to learn anything about what science even is and continuously erroneously proclaim what it is.
I think there is something very wrong with your brain.
Speaking of mouthing off despite never understanding much:
It's like the special olympics over here.
Sweet burn on those with special needs. Working hard on keeping those with disabilities down.
For sure I thought you were going to endeavor to prove that you're not technically a member athlete.
Figured I would address the offensive part. I have already given my IQ results but you dismissed that. So if you are going to dismiss the thing we use to empirically measure intelligence then not much else to do.
I also for sure expected you not to address your insult. Turns out I was right. But hey, those with disabilities are at your whim right? You are superior to those with special needs so why not make them into an insult right?
Nope. If I were using only part of it, that "or" would be "and".
Are you saying Science does not demonstrate the existence of something by evidence or argument?
I'm absolutely saying exactly that and anyone who finished sixth grade in the UK would have failed that grade not knowing that.
Science is inductive, it doesn't demonstrate the existence for anything, it can show evidence of existence though.
I think I'm going to put you on ignore soon, you and agent00f are exactly the same, impervious to reality itself and cocksure that you are right or at least not wrong even when shown that you are completely and utterly wrong time and time again.
May you never reproduce, those genes are poison and with you teaching them your ways of ignorance they are sure to become death cult leaders for other retards.
I think you are confusing the ease to declare something immoral with objectivity/inherence. It is easy to find reasons to subjectively declare sex with a 5 year old as immoral. As the age increases there comes a point where still holding that sex with that person is immoral becomes much more difficult.
Perhaps you should. You seem quite the angry Englishmen.
Bingo. I think the confusion here has to do with morality being subjective versus morality being arbitrary. The two are not the same. All morality is indeed subjective, in that it is created by humans, based on their perceptions of reality. But that doesn't make it arbitrary.
An example of arbitrary morality would be if society suddenly decided that the color blue was inherently evil, and hence the democratic state passes laws to criminally sanction those who wear blue clothing. This is morality without reason. Contrast this with the prohibition of having sex with 5 year olds. Since a 5 year old cannot consent to sex in a meaningful way, the act of having sex with them is both trespassory and likely traumatizing. And most importantly - if it's OK for you to rape/kill/harm another, then it's OK for others to do the same to you, i.e. what we call the golden rule. This logical principle undergirds the development of morality based on consensus, meaning that we agree about which things are moral and immoral based on shared reasoning. Because morality remains subjective, certain individuals may reject this reasoning, for reasons either logical or illogical, but the overall consensus remains because the shared reasoning remains.
That said, some morality by consensus is arbitrary because the shared reasoning is weak or non-existent. Particularly traditional sexual morality - rules which limit or restrict sexual conduct between consenting adults. A perfect example is homosexuality, the moral prohibition of which is arbitrary in the sense that it isn't backed by anything resembling a coherent rationale. The "reason" is either an "ick" factor - a purely visceral and emotional reaction - or the fact that someone wrote 2000 years ago in what is likely a work of fiction that when a man lies with a man, it's an abomination.
Because morality is subjective, a pedophile can argue that sex with young children is OK in his world view, simply because he wants to be able to gratify his desire without social or legal sanction. But his reasoning is poor, so he isn't likely to gain any traction making the argument. I think why Realibad erred here in referring to the immorality of child molesting as "inherent" is that he implicitly understands that the reasons for its prohibition are good, so good in fact that he incorrectly concludes that the rule itself is inherent in reality, as if to say that either there is an external source of morality, i.e. "God" or else that mother nature actually cares about human behavior. One need not make such assumptions, however. All one must do is explain why something should be considered wrong and hence prohibited.
So morality itself is subjective because ultimately it is man made and every person will decide on his or her own whether they agree with each rule. But that doesn't make it unmoored from reality because the rationale behind such rules can be very connected to reality. The trauma caused by rape is real. The fact that if it's OK for you to kill someone, that someone may just come and kill you, is very real. That's why the subjective nature of morality, though often problematic, isn't as problematic as is often supposed.
Yes, I thought I was having a discussion with a reasonable human being but you behave like a child just going "nuh-uh" and then "gotcha" with saying something you apparently don't even understand the consequence of.
The sad part is, just like the creationists and the ID people, the anti climate change people and all other forms of human waste dumps of people you will argue this again, using the same exact arguments because you are completely impervious to reality, you know you are right no matter what is presented to you.
You are one of the wilfully ignorant arbiters of their own reality.
You can't fix that without violence.
Its clearly my fault that we went from reasonable to you being angry. Perhaps you are right. You must commit acts of violence against those you think are wrong. Wrong being subjective obviously so really you just want to hurt people.
You should get help if you get this angry over the disagreement that some things can or cannot be inherently immoral.
Your brain isn't working properly, you read things that are not written and interpret things in a way you want them to be rather than who they are.
Again, I can't help you, I can only point out the flaws in your reasoning and you can keep trying to get around them to play pretend that you are correct even when you KNOW you are not because to be wrong isn't something that is even comprehensible to your disturbed psyche.
I'm not advocating violence you utter idiot.
What were you talking about fixing with violence then?
Once again, 0roo: you do realize that no one here is swayed by your alt-right freakout posts, right? And that adding a video to a post doesn't automatically make it more convincing?
And as people have reminded you, YouTube is a private website. It's not obligated to host your bullshit. There's a tremendous irony to wailing and moaning about "free speeeeeeech" while insisting that YouTube is somehow evil for exercising its free speech rights to host what it wants to host. You don't have to like it, but don't act like an entitled brat who thinks free speech only matters when it involves his views.
It maybe private, but it is an effective monopoly with ever growing influence.
It comes down to this, you waste your time concerning yourself with net neutrality, when the internet your ilk create lacks all integrity.
Words are cheap, but as demonstrated by action, this is what the left now believe..
It maybe private, but it is an effective monopoly with ever growing influence.
It comes down to this, you waste your time concerning yourself with net neutrality, when the internet your ilk create lacks all integrity.
Words are cheap, but as demonstrated by action, this is what the left now believe..
It maybe private, but it is an effective monopoly with ever growing influence.
It comes down to this, you waste your time concerning yourself with net neutrality, when the internet your ilk create lacks all integrity.
Words are cheap, but as demonstrated by action, this is what the left now believe..
"Fill to sidewall pressure"i wish i knew chinese so i could figure out what my tattoo says
i wish i knew chinese so i could figure out what my tattoo says
i wish i knew chinese so i could figure out what my tattoo says
So persecuted!
Do troll on...Odd thing to say when he's most certainly victimized by your little scapegoat.
If evolved, it cannot be innate to reality (observed or otherwise). Experience has shown me it's certainly not innate to humans (to any degree), unless you consider anyone who walks outside the bounds of your perceived innate morality to be inhuman. That opens up a whole new fun can of worms though.
It maybe private, but it is an effective monopoly with ever growing influence.
It comes down to this, you waste your time concerning yourself with net neutrality, when the internet your ilk create lacks all integrity.
Words are cheap, but as demonstrated by action, this is what the left now believe..