• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Objective Morality.

Cephus said:
Let us know when you look up what the word "objective" means, you don't seem to have a clue.
Click to expand...

Stop. You're looking very stupid. The fact is that butterflies and humans look at the same exact object and see different colors. Ironically, you might want to look up "subjective".

Jesus Christ, talk about retarding a whole thread because of a throwaway example. Stop doing it. Just stop.
 
Cephus said:
Color isn't a sensation, it's a definition. Try again.
Click to expand...

Color absolutely is a sensation. Sight is a sense. We use our senses to experience sensations. The sensation of blue. The sensation of sweetness. etc
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Stop. You're looking very stupid. The fact is that butterflies and humans look at the same exact object and see different colors. Ironically, you might want to look up "subjective".
Click to expand...

That only proves that neither set of optical sensors provides an accurate example of objective reality. Are you under the assumption that for someone who has red/green colorblindness, the colors red and green simply stop existing? Are you thinking that if these people look at a spectroscope, they won't see that something that is green falls into a wavelength of around 510 nanometers and something that is red falls into a wavelength of around 650 nanometers? Are you that clueless?

Jesus Christ, talk about retarding a whole thread because of a throwaway example. Stop doing it. Just stop.
Click to expand...

It's not a throwaway example, you're just showing you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
 
the_recruit said:
Color absolutely is a sensation. Sight is a sense. We use our senses to experience sensations. The sensation of blue. The sensation of sweetness. etc
Click to expand...

Sure, but color exists outside of our senses too. Or are you suggesting that things that fall outside of the visible spectrum simply don't exist because we can't see them?
 
Cephus said:
That only proves that neither set of optical sensors provides an accurate example of objective reality. Are you under the assumption that for someone who has red/green colorblindness, the colors red and green simply stop existing? Are you thinking that if these people look at a spectroscope, they won't see that something that is green falls into a wavelength of around 510 nanometers and something that is red falls into a wavelength of around 650 nanometers? Are you that clueless?



It's not a throwaway example, you're just showing you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Stop.
It.
 
Cephus said:
Sure, but color exists outside of our senses too.
Click to expand...

No it does not. If you're talking about color as being the sensation we experience when light triggers our optic nerve, then no, color does not exist outside of us.

Cephus said:
Or are you suggesting that things that fall outside of the visible spectrum simply don't exist because we can't see them?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting no such thing. Light exists. Light comes in a variety of wavelengths. Some wavelengths trigger our optic nerve and causes interactions in our brains and us to experience a sensation we call 'color'.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
The "base" isn't the discussion. "Color" is. I agree, both are subjective.
Click to expand...
And you are still playing a game, as the "base", which is being discussed, is not subjective.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No one said it was?
Click to expand...
Obviously you are not getting it even though it has been unambiguously stated.
Your position is infirm because the "base" of color is not subjective. While the base of of morality is.
Let me quote it so that maybe you will read it this time around.

Excon said:
What we call colors is nothing more than measurable emissions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Whether or not all humans or all butterflies perceive them or not, matters not one bit to their existence or their objective measurability.

Your argument is infirm, in that, while color may be subjective, the base is objectively measurable.
Which is not the same with morals.
Click to expand...

The two are not comparable.
 
Excon said:
Obviously you are not getting it even though it has been unambiguously stated.
Your position is infirm because the "base" of color is not subjective.
Click to expand...

I never said the base of color was subjective.

While the base of of morality is.
Click to expand...

I never said the base of morality was objective.

So what is it you're disagreeing with me about? Or are we just saying things to each other that we already agree with, and repeating it over and over, bolded and underlined.

Normal healthy human babies are born with ten fingers and ten toes

Mac and cheese is delicious

Mila Kunis is hot

How many more things should we say to each other that we both agree with?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
How many more things should we say to each other that we both agree with?
Click to expand...
We do not agree as your argument is infirm.
Firm it up, and we will be in agreement. Otherwise, no.
And I am sure you wont, so this debate is over.

So let me leave you with this funny video.

The Debate is Over
​
 
Excon said:
We do not agree as your argument is infirm.
Firm it up, and we will be in agreement. Otherwise, no.
And I am sure you wont, so this debate is over.

So let me leave you with this funny video.

The Debate is Over
​
Click to expand...


There wasn't an argument, because we don't disagree.

case-closed-stamp.gif


Glad we had this talk.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
There wasn't an argument, because we don't disagree.
Click to expand...
Good to know that you realize your argument was infirm and your statements were wrong.

If that is not the case, then of course there was an argument and we disagreed. :doh Duh!

Like I said. The debate was over.
case-closed-stamp.gif
 
Okay, now this is just weird.

Morals are not objective.

The colors that different people and animals see are different, thus they're subjective, even if the wavelengths are objective.

See ya!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom