Nihilism

I have been told I don't understand nihilism because I don't understand how nihilists leave room for value creation.

i'm saying they only leave room for values they agree with, and go back to their "that's just an arbitrary valuation" bullshit regarding the opinions or values they disagree with. In their warped minds, this allows them to "always win", though actually, it's quite transparent and stupid.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I have been told I don't understand nihilism because I don't understand how nihilists leave room for value creation.

i'm saying they only leave room for values they agree with, and go back to their "that's just an arbitrary valuation" bullshit regarding the opinions or values they disagree with. In their warped minds, this allows them to "always win", though actually, it's quite transparent and stupid.
Click to expand...
Some values are internally and logically consistent. Others are not. Some values are validated by consensus. Others are not.

The absence of any absolute standard does not imply some sort of narcisistic solipsism. Not all ideas are equal.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Some values are internally and logically consistent. Others are not. Some values are validated by consensus. Others are not.

The absence of any absolute standard does not imply some sort of narcisistic solipsism. Not all ideas are equal.
Click to expand...

For you it does. And that's how you use it. You don't like how someone is supporting an idea, you just hit the reset button.

How does concensus validate an idea? It doesn't. millions of people can be wrong, and often are, on a given issue.

Why don't you go to the other thread and describe how racial discrimination isn't racial discrimination.
 
AssHatZombie said:
For you it does. And that's how you use it. You don't like how someone is supporting an idea, you just hit the reset button.

How does concensus validate an idea? It doesn't. millions of people can be wrong, and often are, on a given issue.

Why don't you go to the other thread and describe how racial discrimination isn't racial discrimination.
Click to expand...
Where ethics are concerned, consensus is all there is, Bubbi. The immature can scream and wail and rant about "God" or whatever other mystical nonsense they choose but, without consensus support, your alleged values aren't worth mole dung.

Why is murder wrong? Because almost everyone agrees that it's wrong. Rape? Theft? Fraud? Ditto, ditto, ditto.

To be sure, majorities can be wrong for spans of time. Consensus is more than just a simple majority and we can't take each minor fluctuation in public mood to be consensus.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Where ethics are concerned, consensus is all there is, Bubbi. The immature can scream and wail and rant about "God" or whatever other mystical nonsense they choose but, without consensus support, your alleged values aren't worth mole dung.

Why is murder wrong? Because almost everyone agrees that it's wrong. Rape? Theft? Fraud? Ditto, ditto, ditto.

To be sure, majorities can be wrong for spans of time. Consensus is more than just a simple majority and we can't take each minor fluctuation in public mood to be consensus.
Click to expand...

This is only if you ignore ethics have an evolved component. Traditional ethics evolved because people found that when they don't harm, deceive and steal from each other, their sociological unit is more successful. These behaviors will ALWAYS lead a more cohesive and effective group.

People like you who claim it's completely arbitrary and "concensus is all we have" do this to purposefully hide the true effectiveness of what you might call "traditional morality" and replace it with something that actually harms the groups which agree to act in that manner.
 
AssHatZombie said:
This is only if you ignore ethics have an evolved component. Traditional ethics evolved because people found that when they don't harm, deceive and steal from each other, their sociological unit is more successful. These behaviors will ALWAYS lead a more cohesive and effective group.

People like you who claim it's completely arbitrary and "concensus is all we have" do this to purposefully hide the true effectiveness of what you might call "traditional morality" and replace it with something that actually harms the groups which agree to act in that manner.
Click to expand...
Dude, you're the one who keeps insisting that the lack of some absolute, allegedly objective, standard implies that it's completely arbitrary. I certainly don't. It's anything but arbitrary.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Dude, you're the one who keeps insisting that the lack of some absolute, allegedly objective, standard implies that it's completely arbitrary. I certainly don't. It's anything but arbitrary.
Click to expand...

But "that's completely arbitrary" is what nihilists say when they want to argue. "That's not rational" is what they say. The item at hand usually IS rational given some precondition like 'survival is good'.

then they say 'you only have placed an value on your own life because you're irrational and hate others'..

with nihilists, "stupid is as stupid does" is the operative descriptor..
 
AssHatZombie said:
But "that's completely arbitrary" is what nihilists say when they want to argue. "That's not rational" is what they say. The item at hand usually IS rational given some precondition like 'survival is good'.

then they say 'you only have placed an value on your own life because you're irrational and hate others'..

with nihilists, "stupid is as stupid does" is the operative descriptor..
Click to expand...
Except that YOU are never willing to set out precisely what your preconditions are. You simply assume your conclusion and call everyone else an idiot. The fallacy of initial predication.

Unless you're willing to allow your conclusions to be questioned, you're just meat.
 
Flash Back....!

After reading this thread I believe AHZ is non other than 'RightWingAvenger' from another board so long ago and so far away!:cool:
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Except that YOU are never willing to set out precisely what your preconditions are. You simply assume your conclusion and call everyone else an idiot. The fallacy of initial predication.

Unless you're willing to allow your conclusions to be questioned, you're just meat.
Click to expand...

Of course I am. You just reject them.
 
I have been told I don't understand nihilism because I don't understand how nihilists leave room for value creation.

i'm saying they only leave room for values they agree with, and go back to their "that's just an arbitrary valuation" bullshit regarding the opinions or values they disagree with. In their warped minds, this allows them to "always win", though actually, it's quite transparent and stupid.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly for the slow kid...

The common perception of nihilism is that it states that nothing has meaning, that value and meaning don't exist.

This is wrong. Nihilism states that meaning and value don't exist innately, that they are both human creations and thus only found where humans invest them....

Now, if all you've got is calling things you don't understand bullshit, then move on and let people debate....
 
How does concensus validate an idea? It doesn't. millions of people can be wrong, and often are, on a given issue.

Then who or what, according to you, adjudicates absolute values and meanings? lol
 
But "that's completely arbitrary" is what nihilists say when they want to argue. "That's not rational" is what they say. The item at hand usually IS rational given some precondition like 'survival is good'.

then they say 'you only have placed an value on your own life because you're irrational and hate others'..

with nihilists, "stupid is as stupid does" is the operative descriptor..

Your argument is extremely weak for two reasons.

Firstly, it is just ad hominem attacks, playing the ball rather than the man. It is all 'Nihilists this and nihilists that', rather than arguing against the point.

Secondly, you are making strawman arguments, attacking an argument not made by nihilists. You are doing this because you aren't recognising what nihilism is. See my above....
 
AnyOldIron said:
But "that's completely arbitrary" is what nihilists say when they want to argue. "That's not rational" is what they say. The item at hand usually IS rational given some precondition like 'survival is good'.

then they say 'you only have placed an value on your own life because you're irrational and hate others'..

with nihilists, "stupid is as stupid does" is the operative descriptor..

Your argument is extremely weak for two reasons.

Firstly, it is just ad hominem attacks, playing the ball rather than the man. It is all 'Nihilists this and nihilists that', rather than arguing against the point.

Secondly, you are making strawman arguments, attacking an argument not made by nihilists. You are doing this because you aren't recognising what nihilism is. See my above....
Click to expand...


No. this is what they do. You just hate accurate generalizations about you and your ilk, and therefore call into question the very concept of generalizations, in general. you're weak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top