Factual relativism Puns

The process of elimination argument for moral realism:

Premise 1. Moral realism is one of four logically exhaustive alternatives. Either at least some moral claims refer to a property or nothing does, and either the property depends on observers or it does not.

Premise 2. The logically exhaustive alternatives to moral realism are false. At least some moral claims refer to a property, and the property does not depend on observers.

Conclusion 3. Therefore, moral realism is true.

Premise 1 is trivially obvious. If we say moral statements don’t purport to refer to a property at all, then we have ethical non-cognitivism (NC). If we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, but nothing has that property, then we have nihilism. If we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, some things have that property, but the property depends on observers, then we have subjectivism. Finally, if we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, some things have that property, and that property doesn’t depend on observers, then we have moral realism. Those are all of the possibilities.

I recommend breaking the question up into its discrete stages and evaluating each claim on its own in order to decide on your meta theory of morals. That is, first try to decide whether you think moral statements refer to something, then try to determine whether anything has the property in question, then whether it is observer-dependent.

Ethical Non-Cognitivism

i. Ethical statements do not purport to refer to a property/attribute/characteristic. Ethical statements are neither true nor false. Eg., to say "Murder is wrong" is really to say "boo murder" or "ewe! Murder!" (Ethical Non-cognitivism)

The Problem With Non-Cognitivism:

Pleasure is good.

How should we understand that statement? The most straightforward answer is the cognitivist one. Ethical cognitivism is the view that evaluative statements like 'Pleasure is good' assert propositions, which can be either true or false, just like the statements 'The sky is red' and 'Weasels are mammals.' Given this, the most straightforward account of what the word 'good' is doing in the sentence is this: there is a property, goodness, which the word refers to, and the sentence ascribes that property to pleasure.

Non-cognitivists deny that 'good' denotes a property, and they deny that 'Pleasure is good' asserts anything in the way that 'Weasels are mammals' does. It is thus up to them to give us

After a long and relatively fruitless conversation with a user on this sub, I'm reminded of the very unlikable trait of lying in order to defend or support an agenda and wanted to go over some of the tactics and techniques that are often used in this strategy.

Basically none are novel but quite common, and typically it takes several forms.

One of the most common is arguing against something nobody has said, or the weakest version that does not represent the other party (sometimes called strawmanning, as in fighting against a straw man and knocking it down because it's easy). This is obvious and ineffective for many reasons, but is a form of dishonesty and quite unpleasantly common.

Another tactic is misrepresenting something such as framing a topic or fact deliberately in a way that does not convey the full substance in order to lead other people to draw a false conclusion. This is pretty normal and not exclusive to apologists or people lying for the lord, but a well-loved treat.

Sometimes there is a tangential lie where the actor says something factually inaccurate, but similar to or in a way that would confuse the lie with a true statement. An example is to say that a plane landed on a golf fairway, which in fact a plane landed on a tarmac which was next to a golf fairway.

Another scheme is to make an excuse for something while simultaneously holding conflicting standards. It's a sort of moral relativism for oneself and moral absolutism for the other side. Which I consider moral bankruptcy.

Anyway, what are some of the other little pet ploys you see when engaging in lying for the lord/agenda/worldview?

This is a chapter from a book I am currently working on that deals with the state of institutional trust in America. Given that this is a recurring theme of breaking points, and Krystal criticized wokeness today, I think it is timely and that this sub may be interested. "DDP" stands for Data-Driven Progressive, a left-leaning humanist ideology hoping to be a counterweight to "wokeness" without being reactionary.

Edit: this is a work in progress so please excuse grammar and spelling errors, it's a total rough draft

Chapter 3 - Secular Inquisition

The Church of “Social Justice”

In order to restore trust in institutions and win the war on normal people, progressive and data-driven actions must be taken to increase institutional efficiency, transparency, and address the myriad of issues plaguing the working class and the population in general. Without data driving progressive change, we will never be able to accurately assess if these initiatives are actually working and having their intended impact. But first, in order to use data correctly, we must be able to agree on objective reality. The American left has traditionally been the home of science, logic, discourse, and the marketplace of ideas - all traditions which are necessary to address the issues of our time. Alarmingly, however, factions claiming to reside within the left have been increasingly antagonistic towards these very traditions so sacred to democracy, reform, and true social justice. These factions have abandoned the ideas of liberal universalism and the individual, opting to dive headfirst into the less-than-helpful, quasi-religious world of “Woke Postmodernism” and Critical Theory.

Postmodernism becoming mainstream in political discourse is a relatively new phenomenon. Postmodernism is a Western philosophy characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism, a general suspicion of reason, and an acute sensitivity to the role of identity in asserting and maintaining political and economic power. In other words, be skeptical of everything because what you believe may just be the false result of your ideology or identity which you’re blinded by.

In many ways, this is an important and helpful check on our shared human flaws, our proclivity toward ideological and tribal thinking, and the failings of modern society to create equally shared prosperity. It is relevant to this discussion as Postmodernism is largely a cynical reaction to the assumed certaint

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

They’re on standbi

Pilot on me!!

Nothing, he was gladiator.

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

When I got home, they were still there.

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

I won't be doing that today!

[Removed]

This morning, my 4 year old daughter.

Daughter: I'm hungry

Me: nerves building, smile widening

Me: Hi hungry, I'm dad.

She had no idea what was going on but I finally did it.

Thank you all for listening.

You take away their little brooms

There hasn't been a post all year!

Why

It’s pronounced “Noel.”

After all his first name is No-vac

What, then, is Chinese rap?

Edit:

Notable mentions from the comments:

• Spanish/Swedish/Swiss/Serbian hits

• French/Finnish art

• Country/Canadian rap

• Chinese/Country/Canadian rock

• Turkish/Tunisian/Taiwanese rap

There hasn't been a single post this year!

(Happy 2022 from New Zealand)

Nothing, it just waved

Him: I can explain everything!

(It's his best joke yet I think)

Bob

Just to clarify, 12345678

So that I could frequently say, "I am going to walk 5 miles now."

Edit: My most popular post on Reddit! 😀 Thank you for the awards.

The process of elimination argument for moral realism:

Premise 1. Moral realism is one of four logically exhaustive alternatives. Either at least some moral claims refer to a property or nothing does, and either the property depends on observers or it does not.

Premise 2. The logically exhaustive alternatives to moral realism are false. At least some moral claims refer to a property, and the property does not depend on observers.

Conclusion 3. Therefore, moral realism is true.

Premise 1 is trivially obvious. If we say moral statements don’t purport to refer to a property at all, then we have ethical non-cognitivism (NC). If we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, but nothing has that property, then we have nihilism. If we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, some things have that property, but the property depends on observers, then we have subjectivism. Finally, if we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, some things have that property, and that property doesn’t depend on observers, then we have moral realism. Those are all of the possibilities.

I recommend breaking the question up into its discrete stages and evaluating each claim on its own in order to decide on your meta theory of morals. That is, first try to decide whether you think moral statements refer to something, then try to determine whether anything has the property in question, then whether it is observer-dependent.

Ethical Non-Cognitivism

i. Ethical statements do not purport to refer to a property/attribute/characteristic. Ethical statements are neither true nor false. Eg., to say "Murder is wrong" is really to say "boo murder" or "ewe! Murder!" (Ethical Non-cognitivism)

The Problem With Non-Cognitivism:

Pleasure is good.

How should we understand that statement? The most straightforward answer is the cognitivist one. Ethical cognitivism is the view that evaluative statements like 'Pleasure is good' assert propositions, which can be either true or false, just like the statements 'The sky is red' and 'Weasels are mammals.' Given this, the most straightforward account of what the word 'good' is doing in the sentence is this: there is a property, goodness, which the word refers to, and the sentence ascribes that property to pleasure.

Non-cognitivists deny that 'good' denotes a property, and they deny that 'Pleasure is good' asserts anything in the way that 'Weasels are mammals' does. It is thus up to them to give us