That it's fun to do and informative to others. It might be fun for them too.
The reason I was asking morality yesterday was because that was the main question of the post. America bad and Russia bad are moral questions, so I was asking them as such.
But is your fun the morally justifiable kind? I'm trying to get to the bottom of this in a truely high-level idea discussion with the morality understander
It's actually axiomatic. I can't really prove or justify why one should be good or bad, or why they should be good or bad to one another. But that good is good and to be strived for is the staring point of the philosophy.
I don't define axioms. It is the general definition commonly used, as recorded (but not decided) by the dictionary. Do you in fact have a different definition?
They have the actual meaning that the majority or community gives them. But that isn't necessarily static. But you've shown no evidence that it's changed in this case. That's what I've always been saying.
What do you mean settled? Do words meaning change? Absolutely. Quick examples from Google are awesome, egregious, awful, terrific, smeart->smart, nice, wicked, presently, etc
So if someone told you that you were using a word or words incorrectly, because the agreed upon usage of that term was decided, you would accept it and wouldn't pedantically argue that point instead?
dude just shut the fuck up and never post again. You had all of hexbear trying to explain things plainly to you, but were too fucking ignorant and stupid to just read shit.
Indeed. Simping for Russia and China (and even North Korea, wow) have greatly determental effects to democracy, public discourse, and policy. So I was hoping to change your minds or at least figure out how you think.
Because there's been change in the past, and there is gradual positive change generally happening.
But also because throwing out the system entirely very often leads to power hungry authoritarian groups or people taking advantage of the power vacuum. And they're not as easily dislodged.
I count authoritarian mostly as little to no way for the citizens to effect policy changes. Plus their very heavy handed on controlling their population.
Functional liberal democracies are pretty far from that, since people have feedback, and because of that, the population isn't ruthlessly controlled.
so, say, a place like Cuba where citizens do effect policy changes (like when they recently voted on the new constitution that now enshrines lgbtq rights) are not authoritarian, right?
But most people have no effect on policy and almost all of society, including every necessary resource, is monopolized by the owning class enforcing its will through state violence and deprivation
Yes
What is your moral justification for posting?
That it's fun to do and informative to others. It might be fun for them too.
The reason I was asking morality yesterday was because that was the main question of the post. America bad and Russia bad are moral questions, so I was asking them as such.
I will admit that I am having fun posting.
But is your fun the morally justifiable kind? I'm trying to get to the bottom of this in a truely high-level idea discussion with the morality understander
As a Hexbear poster, I have abandoned my morality and kneel at the altar of the Russo-Sino Satanist.
Is fun moral?
Not always but in this case
What makes it morally justifiable in this case but not others?
That it is benefiting those involved instead of being to their determent.
Is benefiting others morally justifiable?
Yes
What is the moral justification for your answer?
It's actually axiomatic. I can't really prove or justify why one should be good or bad, or why they should be good or bad to one another. But that good is good and to be strived for is the staring point of the philosophy.
This is an appeal to the one true scotsman fallacy
Look up axioms. You'll see they are the staring points of logical arguments.
Why do you get to define axioms to exclude my definition?
I don't define axioms. It is the general definition commonly used, as recorded (but not decided) by the dictionary. Do you in fact have a different definition?
Words have the meaning we give them, not always just the original meaning
Exactly. And the general meaning is the one I just gave.
But general definition is not stable it changes. You're just saying this in a way to negate my definition. Why do you get to define it?
The majority/community defines it has hasn't changed it yet.
So you're trying to say words have actual meanings?
They have the actual meaning that the majority or community gives them. But that isn't necessarily static. But you've shown no evidence that it's changed in this case. That's what I've always been saying.
So words have settled meanings when you say they do?
What do you mean settled? Do words meaning change? Absolutely. Quick examples from Google are awesome, egregious, awful, terrific, smeart->smart, nice, wicked, presently, etc
I mean you feel confindent saying that a word has a meaning that is agreed upon
Yes? Sometimes multiple in the case of homophones.
So if someone told you that you were using a word or words incorrectly, because the agreed upon usage of that term was decided, you would accept it and wouldn't pedantically argue that point instead?
dude just shut the fuck up and never post again. You had all of hexbear trying to explain things plainly to you, but were too fucking ignorant and stupid to just read shit.
I disagreed with all of hexbear and was trying to explain things plainly to them.
But was your disagreement morally justified?
Indeed. Simping for Russia and China (and even North Korea, wow) have greatly determental effects to democracy, public discourse, and policy. So I was hoping to change your minds or at least figure out how you think.
Is liberal democracy moral?
I think it is the most effective system yet devised at minimizing the immorality of the system.
Current examples are however far from ideal.
Actually existing liberal democracies aren't perfect but you still support them? How do you morally justify that position?
Because they're the best we've got, and they have the capability to improve.
So despite the many flaws and problems with these systems, you support them because you think they can improve? Why do you think they can improve?
Because there's been change in the past, and there is gradual positive change generally happening.
But also because throwing out the system entirely very often leads to power hungry authoritarian groups or people taking advantage of the power vacuum. And they're not as easily dislodged.
Is liberal democracy authoritarian? If not then why?
I count authoritarian mostly as little to no way for the citizens to effect policy changes. Plus their very heavy handed on controlling their population.
Functional liberal democracies are pretty far from that, since people have feedback, and because of that, the population isn't ruthlessly controlled.
so, say, a place like Cuba where citizens do effect policy changes (like when they recently voted on the new constitution that now enshrines lgbtq rights) are not authoritarian, right?
But most people have no effect on policy and almost all of society, including every necessary resource, is monopolized by the owning class enforcing its will through state violence and deprivation
What do mean by controlling their population? Since thst seems to be the key factor here