February 8th, 2012 01:53 PM |
acne
Gary, for someone who complains about disliking wasting his time, you sure seem to have a thing for it; you could have made a much quicker response to Ontologistics’s video but instead you chose to make fun of the video: the music, the picture, the voice, and finally, the arguments. The arguments! The things that you were supposed to take seriously, remember? You just can’t help yourself, you clearly want to be entertained while you respond to people, and absolutely love entertaining people by making a joke out of others. What is sad is that this is what you prioritize instead of philosophical clarity! Is this the audience you want? The people who want a good show instead of those who want to think for themselves? And what did Ontologistics do to deserve this unfair treatment? Absolutely nothing! Anyway, once I had sifted through all the pointless joking around, insulting the guy, straw-men and just overall obnoxiousness of your response, I found that there wasn’t much of value to respond to, so i’ll make it very simple. Your understanding of value is what is incorrect and what leads to logical inconsistancy here. You claim that value can be objective, and this is what you call ‘value-truths’, which is the case of the welfare of a sentient creature. A creature that can suffer is automatically assigned an independant value to it, rather than being the space where the possibility for values come into being. You then follow by stating that a reasonable human being ought to <b>…</b>
The Sweaty Palm Program. Top product, High conversions