Relativism

Relativism can not be universal by definition.

What gives you the idea that I rely on theoretical belief systems? Relativism is the opposite of a belief system.

Relativism can be refuted in two sentences. OP is a retarded nigger

it's a theoretical belief that what your inbred schizophrenic mind believes matters way more than it really does.

Well, not to define absolutes, like math and science, but religion, morality, governance, pretty much anything relating to a choice to be made about anything is relative to the observer. This is especially true for morality.

I expect no less from a half-nigger brazilian. You and your country never fail to meet expectations.

Nah, morality is somewhat fixed but sociopaths and psychopaths try to push their mental retardation into others so they can embrace dinduism.
Even animals have morals.

LOL

Attached: found-the-jew.png (750x751, 136.4K)

the teachings of Jesus Christ are the only universal truths, the rest is Jewish trickery

Claiming relativism as being universally true would also make the laws of mathematics relative, which they are not. You are making a universal claim that denies the existence of universal claims, your position is self-refuting

The phrase "everything is relative" defeats itself. Boy that was easy.

I literally responded to your sophomoric attack. Once again, Brazil allows its dimmest inbreds to represent the whole country online. If I ever went there, I literally expect to deal solely with morons and whores.

Ok, universally true except for the sciences.

I'd say it's relatively debatable.
I think in terms of cause and effect.

see
by the way

That would be relativism as well. No matter the cause or the effect, the desirability of the outcome is relative to the desires of the observer.

Here we are. Relative to your belief in the jew on a stick, your religion is absolute truth to you.

The laws of mathematics exist on a higher degree if truth than the sciences. Moral laws are just as absolute as the laws of mathematics.

You sound like a retarded kike who wants to morally justify sucking baby dicks

>morality is somewhat fixed
>somewhat
define

incorrect, but I want to hear your argument

"geometric" relations are universal truths

Yes, it's clever to try to debunk a thread using linguistics instead of reasoning. You win the internet.

I dont think you understand the concept your trying to argue.

>Moral laws are just as absolute as the laws of mathematics.
They are not. Give me any example.

I don't think you understand the topic. Any choice we make in life is relative to the desired outcome, not any universal truth.

>the desirability of the outcome is relative to the desires of the observer
But, is that really relative. What if the desired outcome isn't what's expected? In that, the desire for something and the attempt for it has an adverse effect? I'm going off of stuff I remembered here.
youtube.com/watch?v=yrYLvaXCokg
They sort of ended up agreeing. They went into determinism near the end there.

Well I think rape is okay as long as it’s against kafirs. It’s all relative, right?

Attached: 1517808078473.jpg (495x495, 85.08K)

exponential

>Relativism is the opposite of a belief system

>ism = belief.
>relative-ism
>belief in the relative

I am here to say "no! I don't believe what you believe"

If morality was relative than everyone would have the authority to decide what is right and wrong.

For example, me being patient and taking time to explain the concept of relativism to a college freshman wouldn't be more or less moral than murdering you because I disagree with you.

By this logic you couldn't classify any hyper-degenerate activity such as cannibalism, rape, human sacrifice, etc. as being morally wrong

What's your desired outcome?

You will still be held accountable by society, but you're free to believe what you want. Your morality is relative to your perspective.

>What if the desired outcome isn't what's expected?
That isn't the question, really. You're trying to make this issue more complex than it needs to be to satisfy the thread.

simp

If you kids spent half the time actually thinking about something that you spend attacking OP, you might learn something other than trolling skills.

>If morality was relative than everyone would have the authority to decide what is right and wrong.
We do. Although many of our rules are based upon belief systems, every rule we have is based upon a desired outcome.

By saying that relativism is the only universal truth you contradict your own statement.

A rejection of universality is what allows relativism to function, by saying that relativism is universally true, you are also saying that the objectivity of relativism is true. This makes your statement instead suggest "objectivism is the only universal truth" which is contrary to what you propose.

In order for for your statement to be accurate you must instead say "relativism is one truth of many"

Thats a bunch of meaningless nonsense. You claimed relativism to be a "universal truth". Being consistent with that logic you would have to conclude that the laws of mathematics, space, and time are also relative and not absolute, otherwise you are just contradicting yourself

>For example, me being patient and taking time to explain the concept of relativism to a college freshman wouldn't be more or less moral than murdering you because I disagree with you.
In your opinion, relative to your mood or whatever hormonal imbalance you're experiencing that leads you to this conclusion, killing me would be as morally just as teaching something to someone.

Fortunately for me, Society dictates that you will be punished for one. This doesn't have to affect how you think, only how you behave.

oh is that right? well I believe might makes right so Im gonna beat your nerd ass and establish objective truth through force

Yes.

Attached: Stirner.jpg (753x800, 170.22K)

Your post is well written. I don't think I can refute such an amazing argument. I'll bet your mom loves you. Me? I'm proud to call you my peer, user. I'll bet your penis is really big and you have lots of friends.

I don't know why I expected an intelligent conversation from your ilk.

>I think your an annoying faggot, and my desired outcome is to kill you and steal your shit
>Because morality is relative my actions are morally justified

Quit repeating bullshit you heard your philosophy 101 professor preach. This is the type of logic jews use to justify raping kids

Haven't been to college for 20 years.

Your inability to think past what you're told to think is evident.

What I'm bringing up is basically something that's brought up in the video. Instead of rape, it's thievery. In that the desire to steal food to feed ones family isn't so conducive to his goal. In that suggesting a better alternative would be to get a job and earn money to buy it. It's pretty simplistic. But, in other words I think it's like "I wouldn't do that if I were you kinds of situations." This makes the moral not really relative in that the morality to not do it exists simply by virtue that the conflicting desires that exist. You stealing food from the shop is not conducive to the shopkeeper's desire to make money. There in lies the morality. This isn't just true with this singular shopkeeper but all of them. They are recognized for that right, and so too does the morality get recognized.

>Relativism is the only universal truth.
>Prove me wrong.
You're not even wrong. You've made a category error, so your attempt at an assertion is nonsensical.

If a particular society dictated that cannibalism, human sacrifice, and infanticide were "morally good" then those actions would be objectively moral because a majority of people in that society believed it to be true?

Nice argument pussy

I have 2 diplomas user.
I am not a dumb-dumb by any means.
English is my fifth spoken language.

>universalism of any form
that's a spook sir

Attached: 1478892890847.jpg (613x771, 40.56K)

Why do we all feel emptiness?

You cannot beat him if you do not exist. There is no proof that you do exist there is no proof saying that it isnt a bot that has typed those words, nor is there any proof that there was a bot at all. There is no proof that i exist either, as for all you know i could be a program telling you this.

checked and felt

Attached: 1453128421540.jpg (800x600, 57.29K)

Isn't truth relative according to relativism?

if everything is relative your statement is relative therefore truth exists BTFO

Both sentences presume the existence of laws of logic. Are those relative too? If not, why don't you include them as universal truths?

The desired outcome doesn't have to take only the easiest path.

Now, you bring up morality relative to others, but that consideration could also be relative to the desired outcome, and is a choice the subject needs to make.

This doesn't exclude even searingly complex means of reaching a decision, but in the end, It's still based upon the desired outcome. The fact that going against the established rules will be rewarded with punishment is merely another factor in the decision. I'm not justifying any particular actions here, only exposing that the decisions in life are always ambiguous. Religions and the rules of society are merely suggested guides for reaching conclusions.

I doubt your even 20 years old

Correct.

I think we're saying the same thing, I just think we're labeling it differently.

Yup. Now I know that's the case.

>Relativism
Wow big brains such wojak.

Impossible since relativism doesn't mean anything. Relativism is a concept therefore it doesn't exist outside of your head.

And how do you justify that claim?
Why are moral laws subject to popular consensus when the laws of mathematics are not, especially considering your original statement that all truth is relative?

And you use your degrees to argue semantics because you want to be that guy who can be presented with an argument and diffuse it with an unrelated attack on the way the question is asked instead of discussing the subject objectively. Kids think like this. You probably picture the adoration of your peers for your cleverness while you're formulating your arguments. You want to be a clever guy. I understand it, user; I just don't want to give you any idea that you're even close to being a decent contributor here by arguing the relatively useless arguments you're injecting into the thread. You're a Yas Forums denizen. I knew what to expect. My hopes were just a little too high for a wednesday night, I guess. I'm also very tired and didn't start the thread perfectly to avoid such petty nitpicking. With a little more consideration about the way I phrased the subject of the thread, perhaps I'd have gotten intelligence out of you instead of trolling.

Your morality may agree with that, but you still have society to answer to. This isn't a reason to misbehave, only to evaluate why you make the decisions you do.

I appreciate your zeal, but you're off the page by a mile.

For some things.

Then you're wrong.

I think so too.

Wouldn't that mean the morals of your particular culture are objectively moral?
In which case, you're then bound by the morals of your culture into thinking that a particular moral system is objective. Thus your morality is objective.
This is a paradox.
Cultural relativism might be the only moral 'theory' that is inherently self-contradictory.
You either go full ghost-buster, or defend a moral system on faith, none of this half assed shit.
Also, there's a difference between defining morality as a sociological feature and defining it as a kind of truth. You're mixing these things.

Attached: 1453034761195.jpg (500x382, 15.22K)

Squares are circles. Prove me wrong.

Attached: downloadfile-1.jpg (474x467, 25.4K)