Eugenics in Europe

I believe you are wrong. Is your belief superior to mine?

Only if I’m right and in the case of the definition, I am.

So your problem is with the fact that we aren’t talking about “emotion” as particles and energy?

Again, I was using the common understanding of the word emotions and how they are in nature. You said they require supernatural. Theoritical physics has nothing to do with this.

If you model it right, it does. That’s the idea, it’s a model used to approximate behavior in a scientific way.

I still have no idea how this relates to anything regarding emotion.

I said I don’t get your point anymore (I’m not even sure if you are making one), you didn’t clarify and you continue to talk about unified theory of physics. That has no bearing on supernatural, where you started (the original contention). At this point you are just trolling and you continue to try to throw out technicalities possibly in hopes that I didn’t know FEA or anything about physics, which either proves you were making something up or can’t back up your original point. Either way, the theory of physics is unrelated to what we’re talking about. If you don’t want to use the word “emotions” and what to describe everything we see in behavior as materials, energies, and atoms because that is “true” science be my guest but I don’t think this trolling needs to continue. You can have the last word.

Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. It’s all subjective.

I cannot answer your question. If you believe even logic itself is subjective it’s a full stop. There is no possibility for objective discussion when the most basic rules of operation are thrown out.

I have a nagging feeling you are going to stand firmly by your statement that ‘logic is subjective’ and not budge one iota from that. The consequence of that is end of discussion. Nobody can be right and nobody can be wrong. We’re both right and we’re both wrong, rendering such binary linguistics meaningless. There is no rational, you’ve done away with that term. We are merely meat robots, strewn across a random rock in the universe running through our programming at this point.

To throw out logic, is to throw out the most basic fabric of understanding anything. You don’t seem to get the consequence of setting your own rules. Denying even that the effect of such a thing has real world consequences.

I will be happy to answer any question you may have, under the condition you accept the reality of objectiveness in this universe in which we find ourselves. And further at least name what this objectiveness is, so I know what type of ground I am standing on when I answer.

Gotcha. Have a nice day.

That is exactly what it means to say ‘logic is subjective’. You remove the substrate of what is knowable. Logic is the basis of fact, with logic being subjective, facts becomes subjective.

One woman’s rape, is one man’s casual sex. Both are right. It’s has a name, it’s called the ‘Both hand’ or ‘two hand’ approach. It’s taught in Eastern Philosophy and despite being annihilated in western philosophy, people like to try and hang on to it.

In a world without logic, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer. It’s what ever we decide to make it.

You don’t need to keep goin lol. We’ve reached agree to disagree territory. Have a nice day.

That really isn’t what we’ve reached
 We’ve reached an inability to discuss because we have no rules on which to base the discussion.
We have to agree that something is objective, truth, logic, math
 something in further discussion.
Otherwise, we can share experience but not exchange ideas, save for passively. There are things, like opinions, that are subjective. But logic is absolutely objective. It has to be, because it is the basis for all knowledge.
I drilling it because it’s important. And you don’t have to take it from me, research it. It’s less important to be right or wrong about something than it is to at least agree there is such thing as right and wrong. And the determining factor of that, is logic.

It’s only 3 minutes
 And well done.

Did you just rephrase “agree to disagree territory” and use it to tell me I’m wrong?

‘Inability to discuss’ is not the same thing as ‘agree to disagree’. It means it doesn’t matter if we agree or disagree. We can agree and disagree, it’s that neither of us can be right or wrong, so agreements or disagreements have no meaning.

Gotcha. Have a nice day

Define nice?

lol, I kid.

Thank you for actually adding to what the discussion should have been about.

1 Like

There is something known as subjective logic.

This one because it irks me and I can’t seem to let shit go.

My comments regarding “logic is subjective” revolved around DEFENDING those of the faith in such that if you genuinely believe something, it’s logical to practice around it. As such, society “created/defined” what is logical/rational. While I’m an atheist and others practice, it still fits that BOTH of us are being rational and/or logical, as we’re practicing in whatever rules we define our existence around.

So, again, who says 1+1=2 and not 3? We do. I do. Society does. The ones that invented math and every other concept you’ve ever heard of to define the universe as we know it (since this shit didn’t fall from the sky).

Society does not create or destroy anything. People discover facts be they physical or metaphysical. We can change the lingo, but not the essence.
Mathematical facts for instance, are still true even if no one is around to know it.

The irony here is that you are demanding that ‘subjective logic’ is an objective truth.

Is that a fact?

The real irony is you have the power to completely destroy my entire argument by explaining (with your belief that logic = objective, not mine) which of us is being rational and which is irrational Re: our religious beliefs. If all logic and rationality is objective, one of us has to be logical and the other not in your world view.

Feel free to completely destroy my argument whenever you want.