How do you respond to "there is no right or wrong, there is only opinion", you cannibals?

Dunno, why?

I just wrote a long ass book about philosophical economy status of Christianity

I'll put my mouth near his/her ear and whispers:

[spoiler]*lick ear*[/spoiler]

You could try posting it as a few threads. I'm sure some user will take pics of it.

I'd say that he's right but that he still has to adhere to the moral principles the current society propagates.

Just tell them that their are certain things which are FACT. For example: Ask this people which shape the sun is (when viewed from Earth), when they respond with "Round" say "No, it's square". When they respond with back with telling you that you're wrong tell them "there is no right or wrong, there is only opinion".

You need to show these people how silly they are, it's the only way.

Bullshit, we didn't burn people in the old days for nothing.

It is raining right now in this city.
This phrase is either right or wrong. Solved.

Subjective morality is impossible to maintain. Subjective morality is the result of radical secularism that is crippling society.

by tipping my fedora

"I respect you having your opinion but i will fight you if it's opposite of mine"

bump

When its raining in part of the city but not raining in another part of the city, that phrase is both right and wrong. I assert that your opinion that it is raining in the city is wrong, because I am of the opinion that it is not raining in the city because it isn't raining in this neighborhood.

You're wrong.

Of course I won't let it slide because I have another opinion of what's right or wrong.

"Case in point."

Fucking sophists.

Exactly.

>implying the sophists weren't unfairly besmirched by a pack of autists whose primary contribution to philosophy is holding it back for 2200 years

>appears behind you
>says "nothing personell, malady"
>*tips fedora*

are we talking about the purpose of life or just truth

truth by definition is not opinions
purpose of life is such a misunderstood idea I'd need to dissect it before it's remotely addressable

I think it's more about things in general.

How so? What does "subjective morality" mean to you?

I agree, there is no objective morality - assuming there is no God and that all religions are false. But that is quite an assumption to make.

If that is true, then its a fact and not an opinion.

Blown the fuck up.

>implying the sophists didn't damage their reputation all by themselves

>whose primary contribution to philosophy is holding it back for 2200 years

hmmmmmmmmmm

There is no right or wrong, there is only opinion. :^)

>sure, we could *pay* for proper instruction in virtue, or we could listen to this pack of crazy people that are all too happy to legitimize our power structures anyway

Yeah, all by themselves.

>implying Platonism and everything to spring from it wasn't the near-death of philosophical thought

I kick them in their vaginas and say I did nothing wong

>follow from axiomatically true logico-mathematical principles.

you can't verify those axioms as objective truth using the same logico-mathematical principles that defined them in the first place. At best, you can reduce the argument down to cognito ergo sum.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theorem

There's a difference between fact and opinion. Anybody that attended first grade could explain that to you.

I reply there are historical situations where there is a right and wrong side.
Much like how the IRA and PIRA were the objective good, and the Brits were the objective evil of the The Troubles.

t. Seamus O'Brien

desu even cogito ergo sum follows a logical principle. Why cant you say "cogito ergo non sum"?
Because we feel that would be a contradiction.
And therefore a logical principle.

>you can't verify those axioms as objective truth using the same logico-mathematical principles that defined them in the first place
You can hypothesize that 1+1 doesn't equal 2 or that squares don't have 4 sides, but you can't actually believe that - you have proto-concepts like unity, sameness, difference, addition and subtraction hardwired into yourself and then some other concepts have some universally agreed upon definitions.

"Without love it cannot be seen"

Cormac McCarthy:

"Might does not make right, said Irving. The man that wins in some combat is not vindicated morally.

Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test. A man falling dead in a duel is not thought thereby to be proven in error as to his views. His very involvement in such a trial gives evidence of a new and broader view. The willingness of the principals to forgo further argument as the triviality which it in fact is and to petition directly the chambers of the historical absolute clearly indicates of how little moment are the opinions and of what great moment the divergences thereof. For the argument is indeed trivial, but not so the separate wills thereby made manifest. Man’s vanity may well approach the infinite in capacity but his knowledge remains imperfect and howevermuch he comes to value his judgements ultimately he must submit them before a higher court. Here there can be no special pleading. Here are considerations of equity and rectitude and moral right rendered void and without warrant and here are the views of the litigants despised. Decisions of life and death, of what shall be and what shall not, beggar all question of right. In elections of these magnitudes are all lesser ones subsumed, moral, spiritual, natural."

I will spend my life helping people realize that allah is the only salvation.

kek

t. Memri tv

t. kek

Sublime.

...

...

lel