oh damn, we can sigh? i didn’t realise that was on the table, i’ve been missing a trick this whole time.
ok, here i go.
based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.
I’m glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective “natural” exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.
It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance.
definition of what ? citation ?
Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue.
Yes and i stated my reasons why.
And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.
I do, again, my reasons are stated.
but seeing as were are doing definitions now:
3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.
sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?
For any particular reason…or ?
I’ll quote myself :
Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.
Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.
I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?
I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.
Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?
Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?
I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.
I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that’s what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.
i mean, if you’re going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn’t easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.
Or you could just say you don’t want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?
Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?
As with most of your responses you’re going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.
Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?
See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.
I mean, you still haven’t actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It’s more impressive than anything.
It’s absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?
oh damn, we can sigh? i didn’t realise that was on the table, i’ve been missing a trick this whole time.
ok, here i go.
I’m glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective “natural” exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.
definition of what ? citation ?
Yes and i stated my reasons why.
I do, again, my reasons are stated.
but seeing as were are doing definitions now:
sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?
For any particular reason…or ?
I’ll quote myself :
Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.
Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:
I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?
I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.
Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?
Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?
I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that’s what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.
i mean, if you’re going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn’t easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.
Or you could just say you don’t want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?
As with most of your responses you’re going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.
See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.
I mean, you still haven’t actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It’s more impressive than anything.
It’s absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?