Why can’t rape be objectively wrong?

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Consept facts are not debatable. Black people were slaves in america, fact. Facts literally are not debatable. 

Is your definition of black people, slaves, and America just facts? Is your definition of facts a fact?

To give you a hint: facts are defined relative to a perspective, and there are an infinite amount of perspectives. Are there an infinite amount of facts then?

What if your idea of "facts" and "objectivity" is simply a result of the denial of the "fact" that it's just your perspective?

Edited September 3, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Psychic crocodile]

@Roy obviously. Those weren't facts. And if we want to speak about facts, we should speak about facts. I'm not speaking of opinions or beliefs being labelled as fact. Concrete facts do not have any room for debate.

The reason I commented this, is because thinking in right vs wrong isn't helpful. Fact is, harm is harm, and that's it, that's all you need to know. If someone were to say rapists are bad - this is not fact because it's too nuanced, but you could say rapists are human - fact. 

[Psychic crocodile]

@Carl-Richard lol and that is why you do not need to over think. Super unneccessary to try to twist a fact into different concepts, you can do that infinitely and it serves no purpose. It also does not erase the fact that yes here on "earth" "humans" call a piece of land "america" where they used to "own" "black people" as "slaves". That's what your point was and its redundant.

[Carl-Richard]

7 minutes ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Carl-Richard lol and that is why you do not need to over think. Super unneccessary to try to twist a fact into different concepts, you can do that infinitely and it serves no purpose. It also does not erase the fact that yes here on "earth" "humans" call a piece of land "america" where they used to "own" "black people" as "slaves". That's what your point was and its redundant.

But what is America? What is a piece of land? What is black people? What is slaves? Can you define it?

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

27 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Danioover9000 @Psychic crocodile

Can facts change through time? Or have facts changed through time, advancing tech etc?

   Yes, some facts can change throughout time.

[Consept]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Consept

   Yes, some facts can change throughout time.

So you know what im gonna say, if one fact can change over time (flat earth for example) couldnt we say that every 'fact' has the potential to change over time dependent on new information, technology, perspectives? If thats the case how can there be an objective truth, if objective truth has the potential to change and in fact, if history is anything to go by, will almost definitely change? 

[Psychic crocodile]

@Carl-Richard lol you do not need words at that point. I can draw you a picture. You dont actually need to define anything with words. 

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Psychic crocodile said:

@Carl-Richard lol you do not need words at that point. I can draw you a picture. You dont actually need to define anything with words. 

How do I know what you're showing me?

[Psychic crocodile]

@Consept time changes things because of past present and future language. Time doesnt erase. Why are you saying "flat earth" that's not a fact and it never was. Just because some person thought something, doesnt make their thought fact. The fact would be that some humans think the earth is flat

Edited September 3, 2020 by Psychic crocodile

[Psychic crocodile]

@Carl-Richard what's the point of that question? Do you think a dog needs to know "what" a human is, to know what a human is? If my dog sees a picture of another dog (even just a cartoon dog!) he starts growling because he knows it's another animal. He doesnt need to know more than an image. Humans are the ones who want to put more onto something than it simply is

Edited September 3, 2020 by Psychic crocodile

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Carl-Richard what's the point of that question? Do you think a dog needs to know "what" a human is, to know what a human is? If my dog sees a picture of another dog (even just a cartoon dog!) he starts growling because he knows it's another animal. He doesnt need to know more than an image. Humans are the ones who want to put more onto something than it simply is

You've lost me. What has this got to do with facts?

Edited September 3, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

20 minutes ago, Consept said:

So you know what im gonna say, if one fact can change over time (flat earth for example) couldnt we say that every 'fact' has the potential to change over time dependent on new information, technology, perspectives? If thats the case how can there be an objective truth, if objective truth has the potential to change and in fact, if history is anything to go by, will almost definitely change? 

   So, if new evidence showed that most rapists were falsely accused, and most victims were lying under oath when testifying against the rape being bad when in the contrary they were enjoying the behavior of the rapist, and a consensus is reached by different groups of people that due to new evidence gathered from both additional sources and review of past history of  every crime relevant to rape, that a new law will be passed for softer punishment and eligibility for the accused and harsher laws for the victimized.

   Just because objectivity is consistent doesn't mean permanence, it's also objective that change can occur at an objective fact or situation, like I've stated above about the whole perpetrator/victim cycle, because this cycle is part of human history, part of a bigger set of actions taken at each other human being, that throughout time is experienced as direct experience, then passed on to outsiders and surviving human beings involved or not involved as second hand knowledge, which is then recorded and taught through some education program or public service facility to educate those that lack direct experience of such traumatic actions that some actions must be kept, some must be thrown away. This we call ethical codes of conduct.

   I don't really see where we disagree at, because I do agree that facts do change over time, and some facts are treated in an objective manner for sack of usefulness. If you mind telling me where we are disagreeing then I'm better able to understand your take.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Danioover9000

[Consept]

15 minutes ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Consept time changes things because of past present and future language. Time doesnt erase. Why are you saying "flat earth" that's not a fact and it never was. Just because some person thought something, doesnt make their thought fact. The fact would be that some humans think the earth is flat

Really consider what you just wrote. At some point the idea of the flat earth was the pinnacle of human knowledge, so much so that you could be killed for claiming otherwise, so it very much was a fact at a certain point in time for humans. By saying things are facts now, youre assuming that we are at the pinnacle of human knowledge and that so called facts can never change, but that has never, ever been the case, things are constantly changing. Modern science you know now that all your facts are based on is relatively new in human history, and in a few 100 years what we think are facts today will most likely be completely different. 

To you it maybe seems like someone just thought the earth was flat a few hundred years ago as there tech was limited compared to ours, but they could say exactly the same thing about us in a few hundred years.

[Psychic crocodile]

@Carl-Richard um you asked me what is "america" what is "black people".

I feel like this conversation isn't possible tho, it is not going anywhere that leads to an understanding.. you are leading it with questions that don't have an answer, nor do they need an answer. As I said, a picture will suffice, or if the idea of a picture doesnt make sense, I will just show you a dog in person, and there it is, a dog.. You dont need thoughts to describe it. But we are using speaking language currently. Rape is harmful, dogs are dogs, humans are humans. Anyway, less words the better. 

[Consept]

8 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Consept

   So, if new evidence showed that most rapists were falsely accused, and most victims were lying under oath when testifying against the rape being bad when in the contrary they were enjoying the behavior of the rapist, and a consensus is reached by different groups of people that due to new evidence gathered from both additional sources and review of past history of  every crime relevant to rape, that a new law will be passed for softer punishment and eligibility for the accused and harsher laws for the victimized.

   Just because objectivity is consistent doesn't mean permanence, it's also objective that change can occur at an objective fact or situation, like I've stated above about the whole perpetrator/victim cycle, because this cycle is part of human history, part of a bigger set of actions taken at each other human being, that throughout time is experienced as direct experience, then passed on to outsiders and surviving human beings involved or not involved as second hand knowledge, which is then recorded and taught through some education program or public service facility to educate those that lack direct experience of such traumatic actions that some actions must be kept, some must be thrown away. This we call ethical codes of conduct.

OK so let me try and clarify what youre saying, Objectivity is not permanent and can change dependent on the situation. It is reached by a consensus of different groups of people who decide whether an action is right or wrong. If they decide its wrong for example it would be objectively wrong, however this can later be changed if new technology or a new perspective comes into being.

Does that sum it up?

[Psychic crocodile]

@Consept dude. No, to all of that. You do not know what facts are then. Facts are non negotiable. Stop thinking human thought is factual. Why would you even call that a fact? It was a theory, like most of science. We are in the toddler stages of humanity

[Danioover9000]

@Psychic crocodile

18 minutes ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Consept time changes things because of past present and future language. Time doesnt erase. Why are you saying "flat earth" that's not a fact and it never was. Just because some person thought something, doesnt make their thought fact. The fact would be that some humans think the earth is flat

   Time is independent from language, otherwise I'd say "I want some sunshine, okay be noon right now!" and bam it's noon instantly. Flat earth was a fact at that time, until enough data was gathered and a consensus was reached that the sun doesn't circle around the earth, but earth circles around it, and enough data was gathered and we reached a consensus that the earth is round, not flat. Thoughts are also objective in that they occur, yes they are subjective because you can't cross that information to another mind directly as is and reach a consensus there, but it's also objective despite being difficult to measure or quantify or design a modal to teach other people about thoughts in a scientific manner. The best so far is poking at people's brains to stimulate memories, but memories are not thoughts and it's done under materialistic conditions instead of immaterialist conditions  like telepathy or Tulpamancy.

[Consept]

1 minute ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Consept dude. No, to all of that. You do not know what facts are then. Facts are non negotiable. Stop thinking human thought is factual. Why would you even call that a fact? It was a theory, like most of science. We are in the toddler stages of humanity

If human thought is not factual, where are your facts coming from did you not think them? 

[Psychic crocodile]

@Danioover9000 obviously I didn't say that we can time travel with language? Do you think someone is that stupid? 

No, time changes the language around the fact. The earth is alive now, but in the future it dies, so now the earth is no longer alive, but it was.

I am not addressing you trying to use non facts to argue what a fact is.

[Psychic crocodile]

@Consept meh, its contradictory I know. I do think we might be better off without it tho, thoughts I mean. Dogs are happy enough anyway.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Psychic crocodile