Locke

What he wrote was: That is an incorrect statement. If we expect intellectual discussion, we have to make sure we are not making false claims.

It's not practical because all you're doing is learning about other people's realities. How is that practical? It's not your reality. Not so. First, I believe I'm expanding my knowledge. It's pointless for you because knowledge can't actually exist, especially concerning other people's realities. And according to my belief, which is an eternal after-life, my life here is very important. Just because you think it's insiginficant doesn't mean it is. Besides, how would you know whether my life is insignificant? It's my reality, not yours. Like I said above, I'm expanding my knowledge and understanding of logic and rational concepts. It's pointless for you because you can't ever have knowledge since everything is relative. If the tables were turned (which I believe they are) there would only be one answer - thus leading to the discussion of finding the answer. Without an answer, which you believe, discussing is pointless because you can never learn anything from it. An absolute frame of reference would be seeing it from beyond the physical realm, and of course we can't go there. I'm not suggesting our perception is absolute, what I'm saying is there are absolutes we can try to discover. For instance, you know that velocity is dependent on where you are. You know that without having to be in the perspective of both on earth and, let's say, on the moon. This brings up the point about the difference between whether or not an absolute exists, and whether or not we can discover it. You are attempting to blend the two. Suggesting that we cannot come to an absolute statement of truth is an absolute statement of truth. Note: I'm not saying we will find any absolute statements about the universe, but believing that they exist pushes us towards a goal. Believing that there isn't makes discussing and "learning" pointless. You claim they can't exist. How are they reasonable? They aren't reasonable because that would assume there is some absolute standard that would make something reasonable. That's a blatant contradiction.

My vote is for Legally Blonde: The Musical, which premieres this April. Yes, you read that right. Legally Blonde... a musical.

Yes it is. It simultaneously asserts both that "individual sovereignty is best for society" AND "individual sovereignty is not best for society." That goes against the law of non-contradiction, making it a contradiction. 1. Everything is allowed in a subjective society. 2. The reason for banning them is that I don't like them and it will make society better. The reason might not satisfy you, but it's all subjective so it doesn't matter. There is no "right" or "wrong" reason in a subjective society.

The Jews also don't use the Bible so you couldn't speculate that. The Bible is the combination of both the Old and New Testament. Jews study the Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, responsa, and rabbinic literature, not the Bible. Do you now admit that your first statement declaring that not a single word of the Bible was written by Christians, is false? EDIT: Further, you were responding to a post that said this: Matthew is in the New Testament, by the way. So no matter how you spin it, you were referring to a version of the Bible that does in fact include the New Testament. So I repeat: Do you admit your original post was incorrect?

Actually... Are you admitting your first statement was incorrect?

So you admit that your theory is able to contradicts itself? So you admit that your theory is able to contradict itself? Because your theory, in itself, is contradictory. Example: "I don't like black people for no reason. I just don't like them. I think society would be best if they weren't allowed in public places because I don't like them. I'm voting to stop them from being allowed in public places." My reason for voting is discrimination at its core, despite there not being a reason for the discrimination itself (by definition).

Well...

There can't be a system with the capability to do "best." That's contradictory of there not being an absolute good. It might be fundamental, at the time, but since there are no absolute goods, it can only be fundamental until the majority disagrees. You're basically saying, "Because an absolute good does not exist, and therefore "best" can not exist, we can conclude that individual sovereignty is best for society, despite "best" not being possible." It can't be bad in any form. "Bad" can't exist. So under your belief if someone votes for discrimination they are simultaneously in agreement and disagreement with the principles of the state. Therefore, under your belief, it is possible for the impossible to exist. That's not contradictory at all! They might not have a reason for the discrimination, but the reason for the law itself can still be discrimination.

If you don't believe in an absolute good, you can't go from is/ought no matter what. What's "best for society" is always subjective, and so what you "should' do is never set in stone. You're assuming that by voting for discrimination that it's going against the principles of the state. That assumes a specific state which you can't do, because the state is fluid. Your view has to be universal because there is no absolute good, so anything that is done by the majority is "good." No. You are still changing the definition. Discrimination is an actual word with an actual definition. I can cast a vote that is purely out of discrimination if I want, and if the majority votes that way, it's best for society.

But even if you had conducted experiments, they would only be true for you. Why would you legitimize the statements of "someone who works in the field" when their discoveries only apply to their reality, and not yours? And what is the point of "discussing" anyway if you are discussing from two different realities. I wouldn't propose to debate with someone about how heavy the object that is in our hands is if he is holding a watermelon and I'm holding an apple. It doesn't even make sense because the object he is talking about is so much heavier than the object I'm talking about. Why even discuss principles that you don't even know are true for your reality (they have only been tested in other realities) and might not be true for someone else's reality. That appears to be the most pointless activity I've ever heard of. Is that an absolute statement about the nature of everyone's reality collectively? The rest of this paragraph you make assumptions based off of an absolute statement that is collective of everyone's reality, yet you don't think that's possible. That doesn't make sense.

Ah that explains some. Discrimination can never be "better for the society" either as discrimination is not 'useful' in the first place. It's irrational, as simply follows from the definition of discrimination. Irrationality is not "better for the society" at all. That's only if you believe in an absolute to define "better." Some people might think irrationality is better. Some people might believe discrimination is better. Unless there is an absolute good, "better" cannot exist absolutely as you suggest. Terrible. You just created one of the most basic fallacies in moral philosophy. You can't jump from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement like that unless there is an absolute good. Period. It can't be done. Since you don't believe in an absolute good, your views are inconsistent. Assumes a specific state, which makes your view not universal, which is pointless. No. You are making up your own definition of discrimination. That doesn't work. Try again.

1. Justification assumes an absolute good. 2. I'm not talking about a specific system of government based on the harm principle. Why after me saying that so many times can you not understand that?

So this is your official stance? All morality is subjective, and therefore, all views on morality have equal weight. For this reason, all laws that are created need only the majority to vote them into place and need no justification whatsoever because justification would suggest an absolute of some sort. If something discriminatory is voted into law by the majority, it is no longer discriminatory. Therefore, laws banning gay marriage are not discriminatory and should be allowed. You would then support the principle behind making slavery legal again if the majority voted for the law, correct?

If people are in constant control of the law, it wouldn't be discriminatory. It only became discriminatory at the time they decided to change it, and by changing it, eliminated it. So how would your initial point even be relevant? If people vote to ban gay marriage and it passes, there is no possible way it could be discriminatory. What would your point even be then?

Your point on discrimination still doesn't make sense. You originally said the law should be blind to discrimination. Now you say that discrimination is determined by the majority. Laws are determined by the majority. Therefore, laws would never be discriminatory and never need to be blind to discrimination. This shows that you are now changing what you originally thought.

That would mean that discrimination almost never exists because it is almost always the majority discriminating against the minority. Your point gets more and more ridiculous the more you elaborate on it. Unlike what you think, discrimination is a real word with a real definition. That doesn't change just by you suggesting it. What does that sentence even mean? That's ridiculous. Mill's principles aren't the only principles. Quit pretending they are. Here we go again, it can't go a full page without you coming back to specifics. Right around in that circle again.

Ridiculous. Discrimination is discrimination. Of course I can. I live in one of the states where it happened. Your beliefs have to satisfy all situations no matter how absurd. It's one of the founding principles of philosophical argumentation. You saying it doesn't make it true. Discrimination is discrimination. Maybe the people then didn't view it as morally correct, and maybe you would say since morals are subjective it was perfectly moral, but it's still discrimination. Otherwise, if discrimination is subjective, then your initial point is even more ridiculous than before. How can the law be blind to discrimination if discrimination is different for whoever is talking about it? That would mean the law is always blind to discrimination, and your initial post would have been pointless.

1. Discrimination is still discrimination no matter if the majority approves. Slavery was very beneficial to the south and the majority liked it - does that mean it's not discrimination? 2. Apparently some people do think discrimination is good for society. 11 states banned homosexual marriage in the United States in 2004 by a vote of 60% or more in almost every once of them. If your beliefs can't live up to any scenario, that is your fault, not mine. Don't you know the purpose of a thought experiment? I'm not answering your question until you quit making up definitions, changing the scenario, and generally trying to avoid that your system of thought is contradictory. The only way you can get out of saying your views are inconsistent with each other is by changing or ignoring the point. Maybe if you quit doing this 13 pages ago I wouldn't be irritated that you keep talking in circles and making up definitions for words.

No that doesn't work either. You just made up your own definition of discrimination which is ridiculous. Do you know why it's ridiculous? Under your logic, if discrimination is being voted for by the majority, it is no longer discrimination. That is ridiculous because your initial point said "the law should be blind to discrimination." You wouldn't say that if you believed it wasn't discrimination if the majority agreed because that would be redundant. Discrimination doesn't stop being discrimination just because the majority thinks it should be the case. So now you've moved to changing definitions of words to make it seem as though your views don't contradict themselves. I used to think you were capable of serious philosophical discourse. Apparently that's not the case.

As soon as I realized you were dodging the point again, I didn't even realize your little "problem." You can't make that argument you just did because it assumes a specific state, which goes against the scenario. You can't change it like that if you are actually trying to have a valid belief system. Why can't you understand that? I've said it about 50 times, yet you keep doing it. There is no specific state in mind, quit pretending like there is just so it looks like you aren't contradicting yourself.

That's irrelevant to the point that your statements are inconsistent with each other, and the only way you can make them not inconsistent is by changing the scenario, which you can't due to satisfy your belief system. You keep taking it off subject in order to draw attention away form the fact that your beliefs are inconsistent.

The sad part is that your entire belief system is based on one very specific and unreal expectation of society. There is nothing universal about it at all.

No one on this board could prove anything. We would all just be quoting different scientific journals...not proving anything. This is a useless topic. Leave "proving" things up to real physicists out there, not 14 year olds on a message board.

Don't bother. He doesn't understand the need to universalize his beliefs in order for them to pass the scrutiny of a subjective stance.