Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

t struck me that this attitude has a close parallel in the religious argument, in which it's deemed necessary to pose an ethics system dictated by God,

[Matus]:

That's the whole point, Dragonfly, to you and X-Ray "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality for some reason must be 'dictated by god'

You just don't get it, Matus. "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality (i. e. the claim that objective morality exists) is a simple fallacy, regardless of whether people believe it to be dictated by god or dictated by what they conceive as "reason". (which one could call the Objecivists' "god" ) . It's that simple.

[Matus]:

Objective does not mean everyone must agree with it, everyone must choose it, or everyone must believe it. Anyone can choose to believe anything about the physical properties of matter, but that does not make the actual physical properties of matter non-objective.

The discussion is not about properties of matter (an entirely different subject), but about "morality", i. e. ethical values. If you run off on a tangent, it will only take the focus away from the real issue.

[Matus]:

Anyone can choose to believe anything they want is the objective standard of morality, but only one thing is, because everything else destroys life.

Sorry to burst your bubble again, but there have existed (and still exist) enough systems of morality which accept destroying life. In totalitarian systems for example, "morally proper behavior" implies denouncing everyone opposing the regime and delivering them to the authorities, which in several cases means death for the opponents. Which planet do you live on, Matus?

In short, the term "morality" is merely an empty container people fill with the subjective ethical values suiting their purposes.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

I've been wondering why intelligent rational people who are blitheringly ignorant still feel compelled to speak out and formulate opinions about matters they know nothing about, or way argumentum ad ignorance - as skeptics like to call it - is so profoundly integral to the objections of such people, you and X-Ray, on philosophical issues. Argumentum ad Ignorance is a favorite of creationists - e.g. I can not, in the two seconds I've spent thinking about how the eye evolved, figure it out - therefore the eye could not have possibly evolved!

That I would be ignorant is an arbitrary claim for which you have no evidence. On the contrary, I can see very well where the holes in the Objectivist argument are, something that many Objectivists still don't see. As Nathaniel Branden said:

The true believers might respond by saying, "How can you call it dogmatic religion when we can prove every one of Ayn Rand's propositions?!" My answer to that is, "The hell you can!" Prior to our break, Ayn Rand credited me with understanding her philosophy better than any other person alive -- and not merely better, but far better. I know what we were in a position to prove, I know where the gaps are. And so can anyone else -- by careful, critical reading. It's not all that difficult or complicated.

That's the whole point, Dragonfly, to you and X-Ray "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality for some reason must be 'dictated by god'

You should read better, I never claimed that. On the contrary, I pointed out that such a claim by religious persons is fallacious.

while "Objective" in the context of science, reason, and reality, means:

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

I completely agree. It means that one can objectively study religion, mysticism or personal preferences, for example in art and music or alimentary tastes. But that is not the same as saying that the tenets of religion, the claims of mystics or the taste for a particular food in themselves are objective, they certainly depend on the person who holds such ideas or preferences. In other words, it's perfectly possible to study objectively non-objective subjects like personal opinions and preferences.

Objective does not mean everyone must agree with it, everyone must choose it, or everyone must believe it. Anyone can choose to believe anything about the physical properties of matter, but that does not make the actual physical properties of matter non-objective.

I agree. However, in the case of the physical properties the use of the scientific method will ensure that different people will ultimately get the same result, therefore there is for example a general consensus among people who use the scientific method about the mass of the proton. No such consensus exists about moral principles however, and I can guarantee you that you'll never see such a consensus, not because Objectivists are the only clever philosophers and the other ones are all dumb and ignorant wretches who haven't seen the light, but because morality is not a scientific question and cannot be solved that way. Any attempt at that is merely a rationalization of existing prejudices.

Anyone can choose to believe anything they want is the objective standard of morality, but only one thing is, because everything else destroys life.

And that is simply wrong, there are many different standards of morality possible, none of which destroy life. This is an example of a false dichotomy, the alternative of Objectivism is not only suicide.

[Selene]

Folks:

"No such consensus exists about moral principles however, and I can guarantee you that you'll never see such a consensus,

not because Objectivists are the only clever philosophers and the other ones are all dumb and ignorant wretches who haven't

seen the light, but because morality is not a scientific question and cannot be solved that way."

If we define consensus as:

Consensus in the English language is defined firstly as unanimous or general agreement; and secondly group solidarity of belief or sentiment. ^[1]

Now, I always felt that consensus was a "significant" percentage of agreement.

Therefore, would you consider that there is a consensus, as defined above, that you should never commit genocide and that is a moral principle?

Adam

Edited July 26, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

But as a way of life for all of mankind, it is a disaster. That was the whole point of a certain book I believe you have read. The book starts with "Atlas." Those concerned with universal values walked out. Those who kept asking with belligerence, "Why should I want a universal value?" suddenly had to make do without those universal values and got what they got.

Let me remind you that that book is a work of fiction, and a very unrealistic fiction at that (which is no doubt a significant contributing factor to its popularity). It isn't very convincing to base an argument on what happens in a fantasy and which could never happen in reality.

Well said.

[DF]:

I've been thinking why Objectivists so tenaciously and against their better judgement cling to the idea of an objective morality.

I suppose the thought fills many people with fear and that's why they are so

reluctant to accept it.

They probably feel the ground will be pulled from under their feet when there

are no "objective values" left to cling to.

For the direct and indirect programming from the cradle to the grave is

the idea of objective value in one form or another.

[DF]:It struck me that this attitude has a close parallel in the religious argument, in which it's deemed necessary to pose an ethics system dictated by God, complete with punishment and reward, because otherwise people would become completely immoral. In fact this argument isn't very complimentary, as it suggests that people never would behave morally if it weren't for that big stick in the sky. Now Objectivists no longer believe in that big stick, but they've found a substitute: a morality that can be scientifically deduced, thereby falling in the trap of the naturalistic fallacy. It's a small step from one work of fiction (the bible) to another work of fiction (Atlas Shrugged), in this regard they fulfill similar roles.

A morality which they think can be scientifically proved and is "objective".

When you shake the "objective value" tree, what falls out is the same old

"evil nature of man." It is assumed that if each individual is left to his

own devices, chaos will reign; hence, the "need" for "universal set of

values" for the guidance of all.

They really don't look at what they are saying: "You are mentally incapable

of constructing your own set of values to govern your behavior. You must

follow a set of value not of your own making and outside of self."

They escape the fact that value is subjective and that there's nothing

they can do about it.

In formal religion, the set of "objective values is "God's" will. In

"Objectivism", it is "life proper to man" with the pretense that this set of

values is discovered, rather than subjectively invented. The very premise

they condemn in formal religion, they embrace in "Objectivism" while

refusing to see the sameness. The former claims "sentient divine guidance",

while the latter claims guidance by insentient nature.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How can anyone believe that I ever made such a statement?

Do you believe that for a mind to recognize there are things (like e. g. a tree) that exist independent of mind is to say no mind is involved in this knowledge??

Xray,

Sure you did. You latched on to the part of the Webster's definition of objective, and that is precisely what that out-of-context latching leads to. You used that meaning several times to posters other than me, and even asked me if that was OK, so I know it was not an oversight.

I'm surprised you did not read my post, or remember it if you did.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Please quote any area of any one of my posts from which you reached this conclusion.

This eager mind insists on a quote and explanation as to how you arrived at the absurd conclusion attributed to me.

Eager mind awaits to see the thinking underlying your world.

Xray,

In other words, up to now you have no meaning for objective other than what I quoted, which to reiterate:

In Xray-speak (from the horse's own mouth), "objective" means:

1. What it isn't,

2. A consensus of experts, or

3. Knowledge miraculously outside of human minds.

As to quoting you, I am shocked you did not read my posts where I did that. I quoted you several times, in fact, as these positions evolved.

How many times do you need your own words quoted back to you before you can remember them? I thought you adhered at least to a minimum level of academic standards, but I see that I was mistaken.

You are free to find them if you wish. They are all online.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me remind you that that book is a work of fiction, and a very unrealistic fiction at that (which is no doubt a significant contributing factor to its popularity).

Dragonfly,

I don't need reminding. I am aware that Atlas Shrugged is fiction.

And your position is arguing against a strawman of your own devising. Fiction can present facts that occur in reality. For instance, maybe you can find a high-tech factory that survives after a brain-drain, but I can't. Also, if you shoot somebody in fiction and they die, I see no way to say that this was only fiction and people don't really die when you shoot them.

But you know these things.

I've been thinking why Objectivists so tenaciously and against their better judgement cling to the idea of an objective morality. It struck me that this attitude has a close parallel in the religious argument, in which it's deemed necessary to pose an ethics system dictated by God, complete with punishment and reward, because otherwise people would become completely immoral.

Actually, I have been wondering why anyone would want to call the actions of a moocher or thief morally good. I can think of some parallels for this attitude, but I don't want to insult you.

Now Objectivists no longer believe in that big stick, but they've found a substitute: a morality that can be scientifically deduced, thereby falling in the trap of the naturalistic fallacy. It's a small step from one work of fiction (the bible) to another work of fiction (Atlas Shrugged), in this regard they fulfill similar roles.

This is crap. There is no Atlas Shrugged replacing the Bible standard. (There were leanings in this direction in Rand's early nonfiction where she quoted her fiction at great length, but not later.) I gave you the "What if everybody did it?" standard for universal values. You didn't want to accept it, but that is what it is. Comparing that to the big stick in the sky is silly.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

That's the whole point, Dragonfly, to you and X-Ray "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality for some reason must be 'dictated by god' while "Objective" in the context of science, reason, and reality, means:

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

Objective does not mean everyone must agree with it, everyone must choose it, or everyone must believe it. Anyone can choose to believe anything about the physical properties of matter, but that does not make the actual physical properties of matter non-objective. Anyone can choose to believe anything they want is the objective standard of morality, but only one thing is, because everything else destroys life. No system of morality of living beings can be instructions for suicide and yet still be called a morality for living beings, the concept is self refuting and illogical.

It's not that a particular morality is "dictated by God": it's that a particular morality is arbitrary; and Objectivist morality is actually just as arbitrary as anything handed down through Moses at Sinai or spoken by Mohammed. Rand's anthropology is not the only possible anthropology that can be validly deduced from reality;

nor even is the morality she proposes the only possible morality that can be validly deduced from her anthropology. The system is at its root a subjective choice: Objectivism chooses what it values, and those values are generally an arbitrary choice. And then it expresses itself in a particularly vapid way: "Life is the standard of morality."

And what is life? If you're going to use that term, you need to specify what the purpose of living is: biological reproduction? dying with the most toys ("he who dies with the most toys wins")? emotional fulfillment? bettering the physical condition of the human race? achievement of knowledge, whether intellectual like Aristotle or spiritual like NeoPlatonism and the Gnostics? [Aristotle in fact is a good example of an alternate moral philosophy that presupposes "life is the standard of morality" even if he never expressed it that way. Possibly another linkage between him and Rand?] But Objectivism isn't terribly clear on the matter. As best I can tell, Objectivism says one should be a productive person--whether in science, art, or commerce: in which case Objectivist morality is not merely arbitrary but an elaborate tautology that boils down to : to be a productive individual, you should be a productive individual.

There is furthermore the fact that to have values, you must have an evaluator who judges the value: valuation is inherently subjective: and since Objectivism recognizes that human beings are autonomous individuals, it essentially demands that they make those choices for themselves. Moral values must be subjectively chosen, but there's not one system of moral values that can be rigorously deduced from reality. Not even Spinoza actually succeeded at that.

[Selene]

DG:

"...a small step from one work of fiction (the bible)..." <<<< very clever semantically.

I might suggest you read Isaac Asimov's:

Asimov's Guide To The Bible, Volume I Doubleday 1968

Asimov's Guide To The Bible, Volume II Doubleday 1969

I dunno, he seems to put a lotta that there histoory stuffs in da book dat don't look like dat fictiony stuffs he don rite in da udder book things.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Is there a confusion here between "objective value" and dogmatism? Also, there is no science in philosophy although scientists acquire, evaluate and use data through reason, an objective value to them as well as others. This is the true objective in Objectivism. Without it there is no Objectivism. Objectivism is not refutable or negated by switching labels, only obscured, but that is essentially what Xray is trying to do. To say as she does that she is only addressing values and morality is disingenuous; that's what DF is doing. She obviously wants more but can't be up front about it. Note that she is no champion of individualism, rational self interest, freedom, individualism--none of it She is the champion of cultural relativism. It doesn't matter that the enemy is at the gates of Vienna. Come on in boys, help yourselves! Afterwards we can have a party and Twitter.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

Fiction can present facts that occur in reality. For instance, maybe you can find a high-tech factory that survives after a brain-drain, but I can't.

By hiring new brains, naturally.

The fantasy (or rather the fantasy that's essential to the whole idea of AS, as opposed to fantasies like Galt's machine that might possibly violate the law of thermodynamics)in AS is that all the producers would choose to go on strike.

Whereas in reality, there would be plenty of producers who would see a business opportunity and rush in to replace the strikers; markets, like nature, abhor a vacuum. (Possibly I should reference to Lenin's aphorism that "the capitalists will sell us the ropes we will use to hang them".)

[Selene]

Brant:

But there will be no animal products at the party!

Kinda really takes the thrill out of the rape and pillage part of the Germanic foreign policies of hundreds of years, until we smashed their

little fortress Europe prison that they kept their people in.

Adam

[Xray]

Fiction can present facts that occur in reality. For instance, maybe you can find a high-tech factory that survives after a brain-drain, but I can't.

By hiring new brains, naturally.

The fantasy (or rather the fantasy that's essential to the whole idea of AS, as opposed to fantasies like Galt's machine that might possibly violate the law of thermodynamics)in AS is that all the producers would choose to go on strike.

Whereas in reality, there would be plenty of producers who would see a business opportunity and rush in to replace the strikers; markets, like nature, abhor a vacuum. (Possibly I should reference to Lenin's aphorism that "the capitalists will sell us the ropes we will use to hang them".)

You have also made some interesting comments on ATLAS SHRUGGED and other works by Rand in the #154 post on this thread.

Excerpts (bolding mine):

[Jeffrey Smith]:

"As to what I've read by Rand:

Atlas Shrugged, as a teenager, at the suggestion of a neighbor. That was more than thirty years ago, so my memory is now rather hazy. I was not impressed by it, and thought the characters wooden, the plot in need of ample doses of WD-40, and the novel overall a second rate book. The philosophy either slipped right by me, or didn't impress me at the time. I'm not sure, but I may have actually skipped over The Speech, or only skimmed through it. I'm trying to convince myself that I owe it a second reading, but reading random pages while standing in the bookstore have only provided me with evidence that my original view was correct. Almost every passage I read was marred by techniques that are the mark of a second rate novelist.

I did find it rather amusing that she chose to end the novel with a magical ceremony, invoking the god Mercury (of whose staff the dollar sign is one form) into Galt's Gulch. And, since he is the god of commerce, probably the most appropriate god to invoke, too.

Fountainhead- I tried to read it recently, but couldn't get into it. The characters, including Roark, where the most toxic group of people I've ever come across in any novel (Roark being toxic in a different way from the rest). So toxic, I couldn't get myself to go on, other than for the sake of seeing how Rand illustrated her ideas--which wasn't enough of a motive. After all, I know, more or less, what her ideas are. On a literary level, I would rate it much higher than I do AS. It takes a really good writer to make a group of people who are so vividly blecch.

Sidelight on Roark--as she presents him in the opening chapters, he is a perfect illustration of the theory of "lack of theory of mind" which psychologists now use in discussing autism. Of course, since the novel was written long before the "theory of mind" theory was proposed, Rand presumably didn't intend to present Roark as autistic."

I had mostly the same feelings when reading these novels. I too think Roark has autistic character traits, reflected in his inability to show empathy and total lack of interest in the thoughts of others. Dominique Francon is similar.

Many Rand characters are strangely devoid of feelings in situations

The rape scene and blowing up a building is one big thing. Many Rand characters are strangely devoid of feelings in situations where one would ecpect them to have feelings. The characters do feel hate though which is reflected in the outbursts of violence they have.

In The Fountanhead, the rape scene and blowing up a building, no matter how

the followers attempt to rationalize these scenes, Roark still comes

across as an emotionally impaired bully who insists on having his way no matter

what.

Rand explictly declared Roark as the "ideal man", "as man should be". Not as her ideal man, for her agenda implied more: Roark & Co are presented as THE ideal men and women, as role models for her readers.

It looks like Rand had so little distance to her own fantasies that she assumed everyone had to value what she personally preferred.

Those declining to make the same choices were labeled as "irrational".

Edited July 27, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Brant:

But there will be no animal products at the party!

Adam

Why not? Have you now suddenly become a vegetarian and suffer from meat withdrawal symptom?

[Xray]

Dragonfly,

You also asked why should I want a universal value?

Heh.

Be careful with what you reveal...

Michael

Michael,

I recall asking you to name universal values and you refused:

View PostMichael Stuart Kelly, on Jun 19 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

But here's the rub. The universal values that Barbara and I hold are identical.

My question:

"What exactly are those universal values? Could you please name them? TIA."

Your answer:

Xray,

No.

From looking at your posts, I could say anything and you would call it subjective without a thought.

Michael

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7185&st=120&p=73256entry73256

Why didn't you try to prove me wrong?

Edited July 26, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why didn't you try to prove me wrong?

Xray,

I don't need to prove anything to a person who constantly misrepresents what she reads and refuses to think.

In the first case, you have consistently misrepresented the meaning of Rand's words and tried to persuade people by mere repetition when corrected.

In the second case, I presented clearly the standard for arriving at universal values for human beings in several posts (what happens when everybody does something). You blank it out. At least Dragonfly brushes it aside saying it isn't what it is, which is wrong. But he thinks about it.

btw - Do you have a meaning for objective, other than what you presented in your posts as summarized below?

In Xray-speak (from your own mouth), "objective" means:

1. What it isn't,

2. A consensus of experts, or

3. Knowledge miraculously outside of human minds.

It would really be helpful if you had more than that, especially when you proclaim your dogma.

If you are too lazy to look up your own words, simply giving a more precise meaning would work.

Michael

[Xray]

How can anyone believe that I ever made such a statement?

Do you believe that for a mind to recognize there are things (like e. g. a tree) that exist independent of mind is to say no mind is involved in this knowledge??

Xray,

Sure you did. You latched on to the part of the Webster's definition of objective, and that is precisely what that out-of-context latching leads to. You used that meaning several times to posters other than me, and even asked me if that was OK, so I know it was not an oversight.

I'm surprised you did not read my post, or remember it if you did.

Michael

Rest assured, Michael, I read every single one of your posts in the thread discussions I'm actively involved in, often several times.

Which is why I also read the #181 post you are referring to, which btw is evidenced my #202 reply to that very same post in which I quoted it.

In my answer, I pointed out a contradiction in your argumentation. Still waiting for your reply.

You accuse me of "out of context latching" while forgetting I had given a more extensive definition a while ago in the Cardinal Values thread. #152:

As for the definition of objective:

"Objective -: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>...

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the objective facts regardless of what one prefers.

Your reply was (# 154)(bolding mine):

View PostXray, on May 4 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the objective facts regardless of what one prefers.

[Your reply]:

Xray,

We are in full agreement on this. Please understand that when I use the term "objective," it is always within this orbit of meaning.

So you AGREED.

Great, I thought, there's a common ground so we can finally get started.

But lo and behold, what happened now? You suddenly flooded me with a torrent of posts: "Define objective", "Define subjective"!

I tried again (after all, lexicon entries can always be completed and improved), but found those I had posted okay, so I asked you if you think my definition is wrong, to please post yours so we can compare them. I even asked you to quote Rand's definition. But you did nothing I suggested, instead there was again your "define objective, hear my plea!"

Again: 'Independent of mind' does not mean that no mind is involved in this knowledge.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Why didn't you try to prove me wrong?

Xray,

I don't need to prove anything to a person who constantly misrepresents what she reads and refuses to think.

In the first case, you have consistently misrepresented the meaning of Rand's words and tried to persuade people by mere repetition when corrected.

In the second case, I presented clearly the standard for arriving at universal values for human beings in several posts (what happens when everybody does something). You blank it out. At least Dragonfly brushes it aside saying it isn't what it is, which is wrong. But he thinks about it.

btw - Do you have a meaning for objective, other than what you presented in your posts as summarized below?

In Xray-speak (from your own mouth), "objective" means:

1. What it isn't,

2. A consensus of experts, or

3. Knowledge miraculously outside of human minds.

It would really be helpful if you had more than that, especially when you proclaim your dogma.

If you are too lazy to look up your own words, simply giving a more precise meaning would work.

Michael

As for looking up my own words, see my previous post.

We can also use what Matus posted on the subject, if is okay with you:

"An objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the

object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the

particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense,

impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it

does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular

subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be

contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785)

Agree?

Edited July 26, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Kinda really takes the thrill out of the rape and pillage part of the Germanic foreign policies of hundreds of years, until we smashed their

little fortress Europe prison that they kept their people in.

Adam

Thanks for emphasizing your collectivist mentality on the illusion of categorical identity. Be careful, you are swinging a two edged sword.

Some of your ancestral "Americans", owned slaves. The "American President, Andrew Jackson, endorsed a genocide of the "Indians." Upon your own absurd

collectivist rationale, I guess this makes you a "morally bankrupt racist" on both counts.

If you are afraid to respond to the content of my posts and have nothing but illusion-based, ridiculous personal attacks, at least have the guts to admit it.

You pretend to advocate individualism while repeatedly contradicting the premise.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

In the second case, I presented clearly the standard for arriving at universal values for human beings in several posts (what happens when everybody does something). You blank it out. At least Dragonfly brushes it aside saying it isn't what it is, which is wrong. But he thinks about it.

I neither blanked it out nor did DF brush anything aside. He pointed out the absurdity of a thinking model as such in which everybody does the same thing.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Kinda really takes the thrill out of the rape and pillage part of the Germanic foreign policies of hundreds of years, until we smashed their

little fortress Europe prison that they kept their people in.

Adam

Thanks for emphasizing your collectivist mentality on the illusion of categorical identity. Be careful, you are swinging a two edged sword.

Some of your ancestral "Americans", owned slaves. The "American President, Andrew Jackson, endorsed a genocide of the "Indians." Upon your own absurd

collectivist rationale, I guess this makes you a "morally bankrupt racist" on both counts.

If you are afraid to respond to the content of my posts and have nothing but illusion-based, ridiculous personal attacks, at least have the guts to admit it.

You pretend to advocate individualism while repeatedly contradicting the premise.

My heavens xray! Such an emotional outburst for you, as if what I said has any meaning whatsoever.

Relax,...it's all subjective.

It does not matter that your culture along with the other collectivist prison to the east of you in tandem slaughtered almost 100 million people.

There are no objective values. There is no morally bankruptcy to file when everything is subjective.

What is the big deal - slaughtering Indians, Jews, Ukranians, Latvians, Estonians, chickens, cows, lambs...it's all subjective, just watch you do not slip on the blood.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Uh, Adam, that isn't her culture.

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant I know it was the collectivist comment.

[Dragonfly]

My heavens xray! Such an emotional outburst for you, as if what I said has any meaning whatsoever.

Relax,...it's all subjective.

You're confusing subjectiveness with indifference, in other words, either your morality is objective or you don't give a damn, which is a false dichotomy. It's the same kind of argument that some religionists use to suggest that atheists are not entitled to speak about moral issues because they don't accept the authority of the bible and they must therefore be immoral.

[Selene]

My heavens xray! Such an emotional outburst for you, as if what I said has any meaning whatsoever.

Relax,...it's all subjective.

You're confusing subjectiveness with indifference, in other words, either your morality is objective or you don't give a damn, which is a false dichotomy. It's the same kind of argument that some religionists use to suggest that atheists are not entitled to speak about moral issues because they don't accept the authority of the bible and they must therefore be immoral.

Ahh, I see. Can you give me some examples of confusing subjectiveness with indifference that either yourself or others have made, so I can have a point of reference to de-confuse myself.

Adam