I’m wondering if its a legitmate line of argumentation to draw the line somewhere.
If someone uses an argument and then someone else uses that same argument further down the line, can you reject the first arguments logic but accept the 2nd argument logic?
For example someone is arguing that AI isnt real music because it samples and rips off other artists music and another person pointed out that argument was the same argument logically as the one used against DJs in the 90s.
I agree with the first argument but disagree with the second because even though they use the same logic I have to draw a line in my definition of music. Does this track logically or am I failing somewhere in my thoughts?
Roman Catholicism and all its offshoots is all Europe has known since their pagan days and it’s less of a religion and more of state imposed propaganda. It means nothing because it’s NOT the religion of Jesus, who was a righteous monotheist Jew, and divorces actions and faith. This is why the Crusades to megachurches are all European “religious” nonsense, while poor Gazans get bombed by the West from all angles and they get together for iftar, lol. What you mean by “religious” and what the outside world means are two very different things. But listen, epistemologically, you’ll encounter the is-ought problem, and without taking an “objective judge” into consideration morality will always be fought by corrupt scholars. Sure, God made us all baseline good, of course, our fitra is pure, but without the handrails of ideology people make mistakes or go through negative paths. As long as all you have are perspectives and flimsy recommendations, society will continue being tits up. One day the Western man will have to stand for something, maybe post American hegemony collapse and the Anglo-European wars coming soon, idk. 🤷
You literally ignored the entire point behind my previous comment. You don’t need to establish an “objective judge” because the traditional ideas of morality are already observable as an optimal strategy to go through life, and we can observe it via experimentation.
I don’t get why you insist on a nonsensical rant instead of just letting the other person have the last word when they prove you wrong. And at this point, I don’t care. You’re not worth wasting anymore time on. If you insist on sticming your head in the sand and ignore reality, then go ahead, but you’re not going to be bothering me with it because you’re getting blocked. Tata
The entirety of the West shows that, if you don’t care about ethics, the “optimal strategy” to go through life is to murder and pillage indiscriminately… How can you say that when historical evidence shows the opposite? 😐