everything else I've written?


>So when you cry cause your kid's kidnapped... it's not cause
>kid's are not supposed to be kidnapped... it's just cause you,
>personally, subjectively, didn't want your particular kid
>kidnapped. But that storm of emotion that you feel when it
>happens... that has no correspondance to univeral moral law???

As I wrote earlier, there IS much uniformity in subjectivity a la the cultural norm. Subjectivity does not import the suggestion that everybody has an entirely unique view on everything.


>This must be where we part ways man.
>By the way, you've just invalidated every emotion you'll ever
>feel, as it corresponds to nothing real.


I think therefore I am.


>>>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>>>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally
>satisfying
>>>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>>>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>>>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and
>>that
>>>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive
>and
>>>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?
>>
>>
>>But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a
>>hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.
>
>
>I don't care what it was supposed to be... a hypothetical in
>which only two options exist does nothing to further your
>argument if your ignoring a very obvious third option!
>
>Yes, if this is the way you reason, we're quite almost done
>here.
>

Where do you get this style of writing? Do this ever engender mutuality?


Why don't you define an 'objective moral fact' for me?


>>I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay
>>between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!
>
>All that is fine and good! But do you believe that emotions
>themselves, in any way, in any instance, correspond to
>universal moral law?? If not, where did they come from?
>Why did slaves write spirituals? Is slavery wrong. or just
>wrong in the opinions of the slaves?
>

I believe there is no such thing as a universal moral law.

Slavery is rational as far as the slave masters are concerned. Depressing isn't it?

>
>>>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>>>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking
>>about
>>>the perceived, not the perception.
>>
>>
>>What is the difference?
>
>
>
>Are you serious man? Do you think that there is no
>difference between opinion and fact? Cause that is what you
>just said by asking that question.



Does 'fact' or rhetoric win court cases?



>>I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other
>>subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our
>>understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there
>>would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a
>>subjective concept.
>
>
>
>BRO!!
>Line every human being that has ever existed up outside the
>room with the light on inside. Tell them all to form a quick
>opinion about whether the room's light is on or not, then open
>the door and let them all file in and out. Some of their
>opinions will have turned out to be right, objectively right,
>and some wrong, objectively wrong.
>



>If you're going to maintain that it's only a subjective truth
>that the light is on, what you're saying is that two people
>could walk into the room (with the light on), then walk out,
>and one could say "it was on, and the other say "it was off",
>and they'd both be right. That's the implication of what
>you're saying.


Look, I'm not denying the existence of an object world, but man's view of it BY DEFINITION, is subjective. Remember, I already wrote that there is much uniformity is subjectivity.
>



>
>
>PS - Regarding Derrida and meaning... you should see the very
>obvious logical self-contradiction there. Just read what you
>wrote about him again, and think about it in light of what
>he's trying to tell you. Here's a hint, it renders his own
>words meaningless, and thus you could not have garnered any
>truth from them, and thus it would pointless for you to even
>bring them up. It would also render your participation in
>ANY rational debate pointless. My conclusion is that you
>don't really believe what he said, but are only bringing it up
>cause you don't see this contradiction yet.


Lol, I suggest you read Derrida. In the final analysis, meaning is interpretation. It IS possible for us to walk away from a dictionary with a sense of the meaning of a word. THE MESSAGE IS THAT THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES.


Edit: In fact this is what I wrote...

>Derrida has this concept called 'differance'. In response to >structuralist arguments relating to language he stressed that there >is no 'meaning' in the sense that we have always
>understood it. For example, if we trace the maening of a word in a >dictionary we encounter an infinite deferment of meaning. If we >look up any word, it will use other words to define it, so in this >sense true meaning is elusive.

He said there is no meaning IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD IT. His words are not without SUBJECTIVE meaning. You're trying to play silly games with me.

Please define 'objective moral fact' for me.


And BTW Lemon Kid, don't expect anymore responses from me. You write utter bollocks. How can GOD be a subject?! You refer to yourself as a subject. This means that you are under the power of somebody else. Y'know... the Queen's subject. What a fuckin idiot. Try to use language in the correct context.