You calling anyone else a troll on scientific topics is pretty laughable.People here are only now figuring out that he was the real troll all along. Smarter fellows like me realized and ignored him a long time ago. I can understand the forum mentality of support the side you believe no matter the logic, but that still gets decided into reasonable and thoughtful posters... and then incoherent rage babbling like hodj.
....Can't win on the substance? Posting a bunch of shitty fallacy laden arguments, quoting citations that actually refute the claim you're making?
That's okay! Just whine I was made a mod! That'll fix it
Pathetic.
This will be my last post in this thread.
But no matter how many people on this forum disagree with me on this subject, it still won't change the fact that I'm right, and I'm the one who hasn't devolved into petty insults. I am no troll.
It appears we have another smelly butts fallacy on our hands, gents..Didn't neg me. Yall suckahs just upset. rectum wrecked.
Cad aside. I typically find myself agreeing with Hodj. But, if you are on the other side an argument from Lithose, god be with you.First lithose broke hodj and now cad. You know he's lost it when he is going through negging anyone who posts in a thread.
Hodj is saying "ethics/morals" are some type of universal fundamental force that everyone is bound to akin to gravity or electromagnetism. Cad and the rest of us are pointing its not and that nothing stops someone from acting "unethically".So just because I read this whole thing and I'm not 100% clear on both positions.
Hodj, is your argument built on the premise that ethics are a universal truth that all actions are measured against.
Cad, is your argument that people make up Ethics to justify whatever they want to do, therefore claiming someone's ethics are wrong is a false notion because there is no absolute ethic to measure against? Its just perspective?
No, and I've never once used the word fundamental. I said the term definitional, and I said that its a result of pro social adaptations in our species. When I used the word universal, I meant universal as in universal in the field of the sciences, not universal as in "Laid out in the stars and the heavens." None of those mean what you, or anyone else, interpreted them to mean, and in fact I even PM'd Dandain with an explanation so as to avoid having to come back into this thread, but I'm not going to let you all just sit here and strawman me in your attempts to redefine what I've said.Hodj is saying "ethics/morals" are some type of universal fundamental force that everyone is bound to akin to gravity or electromagnetism.
Morals and ethics are relative man, there no different than laws or constitutional freedoms. Why you think they magically transcend national/ideological/cultural boundaries is beyond every other person on this forum. Just because you happen to hold a certain set of beliefs and standards that does not mean someone in China or NK holds them as well.No, and I've never once used the word fundamental. I said the term definitional, and I said that its a result of pro social adaptations in our species. When I used the word universal, I meant universal as in universal in the field of the sciences, not universal as in "Laid out in the stars and the heavens." None of those mean what you, or anyone else, interpreted them to mean, and in fact I even PM'd Dandain with an explanation so as to avoid having to come back into this thread, but I'm not going to let you all just sit here and strawman me in your attempts to redefine what I've said.
This. While not everyone is bad, a lot of people are kept in line not because any moral compass or sense of right and wrong but by the threat of force, whether it be legal, financial or physical.Ethics aren't even a thing unless there's no guns or money involved.