Zone1 Is there objective truth? Is there Objective evil and good?

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

To answer your title, yes there is objective truth. That is something that is true for everyone, like saying "gravity makes water flow downhill".

There is no objective good or evil becuase those things, unlike something like gravity, are entirely subjective.

Your OP seems to start in the middle of some argument you were already having, but is just an attack on Democrats.

.

It's coming.






.

 

[Anomalism]

Most everyone on the Left would scream, "No!"...........until they get to Hitler or maybe even Trump. Then they have a serious problem.

Hilter is a problem because he is the universal symbol of evil that no one of any credibility really exists as representing evil.

And Trump is a problem because the Left must destroy him by turning him into the universal symbol of evil everyone has already accepted as being evil.

True evil is a cartoonish concept. People get twisted up and do evil things, but I don't believe any one human is a personification of true evil. Not even Hitler.

 

[Hafar1014]

True evil is a cartoonish concept. People get twisted up and do evil things, but I don't believe any one human is a personification of true evil. Not even Hitler.

You are morally retarded

 

[Anomalism]

You are morally retarded

People treat “evil” like it’s a supernatural essence certain people are born with, but that’s just a comforting story. Calling someone “true evil” shuts down analysis. It lets you pretend their actions came from some mystical darkness instead of the actual human vulnerabilities that led to disaster; hatred, insecurity, ideology, group pressure, fear, cowardice, trauma, ambition, and the feedback loop of power. If you want to prevent another catastrophe, you don’t look for demons. You look for the psychological and social conditions that twist ordinary people into doing horrific things.

Saying Hitler wasn’t a literal embodiment of evil isn’t defending him. It’s acknowledging the uncomfortable truth that he was human, and that means humans can become that distorted under the right pressures. That’s what people can’t handle. Labeling him a monster is emotionally satisfying, but it teaches us nothing. Understanding how he got there is what actually stops the next one. Moral simplicity feels righteous; moral clarity prevents repetition.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You are morally retarded

.

And they believed that "not even Hitler" only until Trump came along.

.

 

[Anomalism]

.

And they believed that "not even Hitler" only until Trump came along.

.

Are you talking about me specifically, or are you lumping me in with some group of people?

 

[Votto]

Why do you apologists for Trump have to castigate the so called 'left'? The word is a pejorative in your world and an example of labeling which leads nowhere good. An objective good would be making sure people in need eat. Seems kinda simple. One can create all sort of imaginary examples but think of one or two real examples. Is it ok to break up families and hurt children as Trump has done? Or blow up boats without knowing who they are even? Your moral compass is missing. Apologies for evil are too easy for some.

100 Days of War on Children

A timeline of the Trump Administration's attacks on the nation's kids Candidate Trump promised to keep the U.S. out of new wars. But during his first 100

firstfocus.org

That would be all well and good if the Left had an actual history of feeding the hungry.

But in reality, all Marxism has brought the world is oppression and starvation and death to the tune of hundreds of millions murdered last century by them, far more than the National Socialists of Germany.

The most chilling for me was Stalin insisting that agriculture had been corrupted by the West, as he championed his own Marxist scientists by the name of Trofim Lysenko to give the true science behind agriculture.

Trofim Lysenko - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And as he implemented his agriculture theory, that was totally wrong, people began to starve to death in mass. But Stalin was unphased, refusing to be corrected or ever suggest that he was ever wrong about anything in his life. No, Stalin said that those who disagreed were ant science as his agriculture policy was followed for a staggering 30 years or more.

Nobody really even knows how many hundreds of millions died to appease the Marxist propaganda gods, but it was one of the most criminal acts in the annals of human history.

And I see the Left today in a similar light as they tell farmers around the world that they can no longer grow as many crops, all in an effort to limit the carbon emissions from fertilizers.

Climate Policies Will Shut Down Farmers

Belgian and Dutch farmers are protesting because they are losing their livelihoods in the name of fighting so-called climate change as European governments seek to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, necessary inputs of modern agriculture. Will American farmers and consumers soon...

www.heritage.org

And once again, those that disagree are labeled ant science as less and less food is being produced around the world as the UN says that about a billion people will starve to death this next year.

History only repeats itself, unfortunately.

 

[Crepitus]

.

It's coming.






.

What is?

 

[Votto]

To answer your title, yes there is objective truth. That is something that is true for everyone, like saying "gravity makes water flow downhill".

There is no objective good or evil becuase those things, unlike something like gravity, are entirely subjective.

Your OP seems to start in the middle of some argument you were already having, but is just an attack on Democrats.

To be clear, according to you, it depends on your perspective as where I and Charlie would say, no, he is and was evil.

The problem is, your stance is ridiculous, much like the notion men can have babies, yet you double down on the Left wing propaganda.

Perhaps this is why the Left claims to have the source of all truthiness and never admits being wrong, ever.

 

[Crepitus]

To be clear, according to you, it depends on your perspective as where I and Charlie would say, no, he is and was evil.

The problem is, your stance is ridiculous, much like the notion men can have babies, yet you double down on the Left wing propaganda.

Perhaps this is why the Left claims to have the source of all truthiness and never admits being wrong, ever.

No one is claiming men can have babies. That's just RWNJ scare porn.

"truthiness" is a RWNJ thing where they present their opinions as truth with no real evidence.

 

[Votto]

No one is claiming men can have babies. That's just RWNJ scare porn. "truthiness" is a RWNJ thing where they present their opinions as truth with no real evidence.

No one is claiming men can have babies. That's just RWNJ scare porn. "truthiness" is a RWNJ thing where they present their opinions as truth with no real evidence.

No one is claiming men can have babies. That's just RWNJ scare porn. "truthiness" is a RWNJ thing where they present their opinions as truth with no real evidence.

No one is claiming men can have babies. That's just RWNJ scare porn.

"truthiness" is a RWNJ thing where they present their opinions as truth with no real evidence.

Wrong.

Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, told Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., that she believes men can get pregnant and have abortions.

www.foxnews.com

Try again.

A Democrat witness testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what "a woman is," to which she responded, "I believe that everyone can identify for themselves."

"Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?" Bishop asked.

"Yes," Arrambide replied.

The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define "woman."

 

[Crepitus]

Wrong.

Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, told Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., that she believes men can get pregnant and have abortions.

www.foxnews.com

Try again.

A Democrat witness testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what "a woman is," to which she responded, "I believe that everyone can identify for themselves."

"Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?" Bishop asked.

"Yes," Arrambide replied.

The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define "woman."

So you found one whack-job.

How nice for you.

 

[Votto]

So you found one whack-job.

How nice for you.

Oh no, there are lots more I can assure you

And no, the long blond hair and mutilating your genitals does not make you a woman.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Leo123]

Most everyone on the Left would scream, "No!"...........until they get to Hitler or maybe even Trump. Then they have a serious problem.

Hilter is a problem because he is the universal symbol of evil that no one of any credibility really exists as representing evil.

And Trump is a problem because the Left must destroy him by turning him into the universal symbol of evil everyone has already accepted as being evil.

It's all subjective because those concepts are human creations. There is no objective truth either. There is no objective reality. Oh, and there are no objective rights either.

What we call 'objective' is what we agree is objective. That's it. Objective reality cannot be experienced by humans. We can only, see, feel and sense a small spectrum of universal reality.

 

[Votto]

It's all subjective because those concepts are human creations. There is no objective truth either. There is no objective reality. Oh, and there are no objective rights either.

What we call 'objective' is what we agree is objective. That's it. Objective reality cannot be experienced by humans. We can only, see, feel and sense a small spectrum of universal reality.

What is the difference between truth and reality then?

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

When your wife asks you how she looks in her new clothes, what do you say?

It all depends on the issue.

I would say, "Your birthday suit is your best look."

 

[Leo123]

What is the difference between truth and reality then?

Truth is belief. Reality can never be experienced by a human being. We don't have the receptors. We are limited to our senses.

 

[Votto]

Truth is belief. Reality can never be experienced by a human being. We don't have the receptors. We are limited to our senses.

If truth is belief, then belief in something false would still be truth.

That is not the definition of truth.

Try again.

 

[candycorn]

"evil" is something that people make up. Its rather humorous to hear grown people seriously describing someone as being "evil"

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

"evil" is something that people make up. Its rather humorous to hear grown people seriously describing someone as being "evil"

.
"The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled Was Convincing the World He Didn’t Exist" Charles Baudelaire (attribution may be questionable.)