also, The way you express yourself in your video tells me that you are more interested in displaying your arrogance than your actual knowledge on the "loaded" topic that is morality.
And to finish, when writing in Latin do not assume other people do not know what you mean by giving the meaning in parenthesis.
Aye aye captain. I'm sorry to offend you by assuming you may not know the technical name of a logical fallacy. It didn't help that you committed it like you weren't aware it existed.
I would bother to offer a criticism if I knew you had the intellectual capacity to understand. Based on your video on morality it is very obvious to any enlighten person you are not intelligent at all. Your opinion is based on an assumption. You could actually write for Readers Digest or Peoples Magazine. You are more of an entertainment type.
I will keep that in mind. I suppose I will just have to wait until I have the amazing benefit to hear the enlightened criticism of this prospect. I will never propose a hypothesis based in evolutionary biology again without referencing Reader's Digest or People's Magazine.
Plato, Aristotle and Socrates thought about it and hundreds of writers, painters and philosophers have also tried to answer the same question and all of them have failed. But here you seemed to think that you have answered this "loaded" question. Even when you say that your answer could be wrong I wondered if you have recognized that it is actually wrong. You never explained how you got to your conclusion. It took you 5:03 min to answer a question that even Nietzsche failed to answer.
This entire statement is a logical fallacy. It is a modified Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance) in that you claim that you have not heard a good answer and therefore no one else can formulate one. Science offers perfectly good explanations for morality and has for several decades now. All of the philosophers mentioned have the virtue of existing before established modern science.
Furthermore, you have actually offered no type of criticism of the actual argument here. You have merely compiled a very small list of others who failed to do so.
A Praying Mantis does not clean after anyone. And if you get a little closer I could bite your head off.
annuitcoeptis2008 3 years ago
That comment was hilarious. That was pretty smart....finally!!
annuitcoeptis2008 3 years ago
Awesome man. I am really happy you're pleased. Could you go clean up my shit now?
Solthiel 3 years ago
You would make a nice pet. Darwin would have been so amazed if he could see how some species have advanced.
He would be so proud of you.
annuitcoeptis2008 3 years ago
I have a secret. Lean in close...are you ready?
We're the same species.
Also, I'm an inside dog. I prefer to be pampered, but I am house trained.
Solthiel 3 years ago
So sorry. i did not mean to hurt your obviously fragile ego.
annuitcoeptis2008 3 years ago
Yeah man, it's bad. I've decided I'm going to cry all night tonight.
Solthiel 3 years ago
also, The way you express yourself in your video tells me that you are more interested in displaying your arrogance than your actual knowledge on the "loaded" topic that is morality.
And to finish, when writing in Latin do not assume other people do not know what you mean by giving the meaning in parenthesis.
annuitcoeptis2008 3 years ago
Aye aye captain. I'm sorry to offend you by assuming you may not know the technical name of a logical fallacy. It didn't help that you committed it like you weren't aware it existed.
Solthiel 3 years ago
I would bother to offer a criticism if I knew you had the intellectual capacity to understand. Based on your video on morality it is very obvious to any enlighten person you are not intelligent at all. Your opinion is based on an assumption. You could actually write for Readers Digest or Peoples Magazine. You are more of an entertainment type.
annuitcoeptis2008 3 years ago
I will keep that in mind. I suppose I will just have to wait until I have the amazing benefit to hear the enlightened criticism of this prospect. I will never propose a hypothesis based in evolutionary biology again without referencing Reader's Digest or People's Magazine.
Solthiel 3 years ago
Plato, Aristotle and Socrates thought about it and hundreds of writers, painters and philosophers have also tried to answer the same question and all of them have failed. But here you seemed to think that you have answered this "loaded" question. Even when you say that your answer could be wrong I wondered if you have recognized that it is actually wrong. You never explained how you got to your conclusion. It took you 5:03 min to answer a question that even Nietzsche failed to answer.
annuitcoeptis2008 3 years ago
This entire statement is a logical fallacy. It is a modified Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance) in that you claim that you have not heard a good answer and therefore no one else can formulate one. Science offers perfectly good explanations for morality and has for several decades now. All of the philosophers mentioned have the virtue of existing before established modern science.
Solthiel 3 years ago
Furthermore, you have actually offered no type of criticism of the actual argument here. You have merely compiled a very small list of others who failed to do so.
Solthiel 3 years ago