Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Which brings up another one: "X means Y in America" to mean "X means Y in my head".
Buzz words of OT
- Thread starter rugbyLEAGUEfan
- Start date
- any form of labeling, i.e. attaching a label to someone and than attack your conception of that label instead of the actual point
- "objectively" and "FACT" have already been mentioned, let me add their brothers "morally", "common sense" and "[action] fits [someone else's action]"
- "how do you define X?" I know it's often used legitimately, but there's no better way to derail a discussion.
- "love the sinner, hate the sin" Gah!
- "you're all vile statist thugs!"
- randomly attaching Dr to people you agree with, but not others who also have a doctorate
- "objectively" and "FACT" have already been mentioned, let me add their brothers "morally", "common sense" and "[action] fits [someone else's action]"
- "how do you define X?" I know it's often used legitimately, but there's no better way to derail a discussion.
- "love the sinner, hate the sin" Gah!
- "you're all vile statist thugs!"
- randomly attaching Dr to people you agree with, but not others who also have a doctorate
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
A shared semantic framework are the very rails on which a discussion runs.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
How morally relativist of you.
Verarde
Pondering Wearing A Hat
<nodnod>
I was about to provide the latter. The former is a good point too. I see a lot of that.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
doing my best
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I'm rather fond of the word "facetious".
MjM
Deity
Mise
isle of lucy
Re Objectively, I had an hour long discussion with one of my friends, and then another half hour when her boyfriend came home, about whether she objectively liked the taste of tea or not. She said that she liked tea without milk and sugar, saying it tasted nicer. I said that tea was bitter, which is an objectively bad taste (to warn us of poison etc), and that saying that she likes tea without sugar because it tastes nicer is objectively wrong. That was an enjoyable conversation.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Enjoyable conversation ?
I'm seething with rage just reading about it. How can you 'objectively like' something ? 'Like' is always subjective.
I'm seething with rage just reading about it. How can you 'objectively like' something ? 'Like' is always subjective.
If both people are aware that their "objectivity" is subjective it can be very fun to try to fit one's personal opinion into a construct of objective reasoning, as long as both "sides" are playing along with it.
But adding to the "objectively" list: use of that word in conjunction with "moral".
But adding to the "objectively" list: use of that word in conjunction with "moral".
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Ah yes, a lot of people still think that if morals can't be objective then we will all turn into psychotic murderers, paedophiles and rapists overnight. Civilization will come to an end.
Mise
isle of lucy
Well, I misdescribed that part. She nor I ever claimed that she "objectively liked" tea. The statement "the friend I am talking about likes tea" is a true statement, and its truth is clearly dependent on the subjective opinion of the individual.Enjoyable conversation ?
I'm seething with rage just reading about it. How can you 'objectively like' something ? 'Like' is always subjective.
The discussion was really about whether she liked the taste, or if she merely had grown accustomed to drinking tea, and enjoyed drinking it in spite of its bitter taste. I argued that her liking tea was a product of nurture; if she had grown up, say, in the Middle East rather than Asia, she would have grown up drinking coffee and would probably have grown to like that as well. (She hates coffee.) I argued that cultural factors play a HUGE role in shaping our tastes, not just on food but on other "matters of taste" like fashion or art, and therefore our self-reported perception of what tastes good cannot be trusted. I said that people often like things not because of any intrinsic property of the thing, but because of associations they've created in their minds with that thing (e.g. you might like Coldplay because you had your first whilst listening to Coldplay). I argued that "bitter" is a taste specifically designed by millions of years of evolution to taste bad in order to warn us of poisonous plants and such, that studies have shown that bitter tastes elicit negative neurological responses, and therefore "bitter" is an objectively bad taste. One may say that they enjoy drinking things that taste bad, in the same way that one may enjoy certain painful sensations, but one may never say that those bad-tasting drinks "taste good", in the same way one can never say that those painful sensations are not painful, even though they are enjoyable.
She argued against all of that, of course, saying that when we say "it tastes good", what we mean is "it is enjoyable", and I'm just misunderstanding what people mean when they say "I like tea, it tastes nice". She said that people don't have ready access to neurological indicators of pleasure or pain, so expecting them to speak as if they do is silly; I should take "it tastes good" as a statement of enjoyment in good faith. And anyway, she said, even if people were referring to taste per se when they say "it tastes good", and are therefore objectively wrong to say "bitter tea tastes good", what does it matter? Who cares that their enjoyment is derived from cultural or associative factors, rather than some intrinsic property of the food?
We then went into the nature of happiness (or eudaimonia) - can we say we are truly happy if our happiness is based on falsehoods? And so on.
Because all morals descend from the evangelical God and all other people are either deluded for not realising this or completely immoral for rejecting this.
Similar threads
