"Moral relativists" are nowhere near as influential or widespread as people make them out to be.

"Moral relativists" are nowhere near as influential or widespread as people make them out to be. All the liberalism in the world that chuds are always b***hing about isn't predicated on moral relativism, but moral absolutism. Most liberals will openly tell you what they believe in are non-negotiable universal self-evident moral facts.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >calling people who hate liberty "liberals"
    Moral relativism is the result of evolution mythology being taught as science.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      The point stands. The people who push troony shit sure don't view themselves as moral relativists. They truly believe they have metaphysical truths on their side.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        People who push troony shit believe in evolutionism. They truly believe boys can evolve into women and that man an evolve from apes and apes from fish and fish from soup and soup evolved from a rock.

        By definition atheists/evolutionists can't have any absolute morals. For morals to be absolute, they must come from outside of man, otherwise it's just an opinion. They may have strong opinions, but they're not morals, they're just opinions easily swayed with a single marketing campaign in the media (e.g. shaming people for calling stuff "gay" because it offends the abominable sodomites).

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Men can't become women and evolution is a fact that has been directly observed.
          Evolution has nothing to do with trannies. Why do you keep sperging out about trannies?

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            I was replying to the other anon who brought up trannies.

            It's funny how you can't even read and follow the thread.

            Just some evolution schizo sperging out all over IQfy right now.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            You claimed troonyism comes from an understanding of evolution. They are not related.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >claim one kind transforms into another if you wait "2 more weeks"
            >never provable

            >claim boys transform into women
            >never provable

            That proof isn't accurate as it doesn't actually model the rate of mutations that actually happen in nucleotides or amino acid sequences. This was already explained to you as well as the idiot who made the video

            >it doesn't align with my world view
            >you're stupid for heresy to my religion, chud!!!!1!!

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            We can directly observe the rate of mitations in DNA. The rate of mutations on nucleotide sequences exactly lines up with the difference in DNA sequence between chimps and humans coming from a common ancestor about 5 million years ago.
            You don't understand mathematics and you don't understand genetics. You don't understand microbiology.
            You literally don't know what the frick you're talking about

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >have faith and believe these mutations (none of which are good) will spread through and takeover a population and account for all life on earth
            >just 5 more million years
            >we directly observed this! (no, you didn't moron)
            >trust the plan!
            >you don't heckin understand chud!
            >drink the kool-aid like I did, and just have faith and believe the evolution experts!!1!
            Evolutionschizo.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, we directly observe the rate of mutation in DNA, and we can directly compare DNA sequences from different species and see where they are the same and where they differ.
            We can directly observe and compare ERVs between species, and we can directly observe fossils found in exactly the places and time periods where they would be found given common descent
            None of this requires any faith at all. It's direct observation.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            You're like the schizos who claim we have direct observational evidence of the big bang.

            Subhuman moronic dishonest lying trash.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            We do in fact have direct observations of the rate of mutation in DNA and amino acids sequences. The BLOSUM matrices are used for sequence alignment and they've produced extremely robust results for predicting sequences in phylogenetic analysis.
            We can directly compare nucleotide and amino acid sequences to compare relationship between organisms.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >none of which are good)
            Here's a video that shows good mutations

            %3D

            Why do you say mutations are never good?

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >this debunked video again
            The only way evolutionschizos can go on believing their schizo theories is they deliberately remain ignorant and refuse to listen to or honestly address any arguments.

            But they're amoral subhuman moral relativist trash, why wouldn't they act like pieces of total shit?

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            You can't debunk a video directly showing evolution. We directly observe entirely new biological information being generated via random mutation which leads to increased fitness under selection
            Therefore your statement that "mutations are never good" IS DIRECTLY DISPROVEN AND YOU ARE WRONG. Why is this difficult for you to understand?
            There is no difference between the mutations on nucleotide sequences. Over time different mutations and different selection pressures lead to entirely different forms and organisms. Including multicellular life, animals and plants, and all the species we see including humans
            There is NOTHING "special" about one mutation vs another in terms of this underlying mechanism.

            You have never given an actual honest critique based on the knowledge that we have. Explain precisely what is wrong with anything I've said

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            That does not show man coming from apes nor prove it nor the rest of your insane schizo theory, you stupid evolutionschizo.

            You're literally a subhuman moron. No wonder you think you're a "hairless ape" as evolutionschizos often say man is, because you've the brain of an ape, you're moronic.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >a variation develops in bacteria
            >it "evolves" into bacteria
            >this is proof of molecules-to-man evolution
            You are so stupid.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >You have never given an actual honest critique based on the knowledge that we have.
            Ironic since you refused to address the dozens of points I brought up, you homosexual coward.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            The world isn't flat and isn't 6000 years old. When you make arguments in favor of literal biblical creationism, this is what you're claiming is true. You can not argue for creationism but then claim the earth is round and older than 6000 years as that is what literal biblical creationism says.
            You do not have a model for how life emerged in the bible that aligns with any actual evidence at all. The world is NOT FLAT and is is far older than 6000 years old. There was no flood. The creationist account wrong.
            And now we understand how genetics and evolution work and we can directly observe it. We know that the earth is round and is billions of years old. You just don't like this for some reason. I don't get it

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >this debunked video again
            The only way evolutionschizos can go on believing their schizo theories is they deliberately remain ignorant and refuse to listen to or honestly address any arguments.

            But they're amoral subhuman moral relativist trash, why wouldn't they act like pieces of total shit?

            >bacteria gets damaged by mutations
            >no longer responds to antibacterial by deformations and damage
            >this proves man came from apes from fish and all life shares a common ancestor which came to life from nonlife violating the law of biogenesis
            >...because bacteria became bacteria
            Evolutionschizos are incapable of understanding the data and honestly interpreting it. So blinded by their religion they can't see.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >bacteria gets damaged by mutations
            It doesn't get damaged by mutations it develops the ability to survive the antibiotics
            Just like bacteria evolved the ability to eat nylon despite nylon not existing until a few decades ago.
            These are direct proofs of random mutations giving new abilities and your statement that "mutations are never good" is wrong.
            >this proves man came from apes from fish and all life shares a common ancestor which came to life from nonlife violating the law of biogenesis
            There is no difference in the mechanism that leads to these mutations or any other. It's just mutations on nucleotide sequences which lead to new proteins and phenotypes.
            Yes, we've PROVED that humans and apes come from a common ancestor.

            That does not show man coming from apes nor prove it nor the rest of your insane schizo theory, you stupid evolutionschizo.

            You're literally a subhuman moron. No wonder you think you're a "hairless ape" as evolutionschizos often say man is, because you've the brain of an ape, you're moronic.

            >That does not show man coming from apes nor prove it nor the rest of your insane schizo theory, you stupid evolutionschizo.
            I've already explained how we've proved this. And humans are apes, we don't "come from" apes, we share a common ancestor with chimps about 5 million years ago.

            >a variation develops in bacteria
            >it "evolves" into bacteria
            >this is proof of molecules-to-man evolution
            You are so stupid.

            There is no difference in micro and Maceo evolution. They are the same mechanism, mutations on nucleotide sequences leading to different proteins etc.

            This includes everything from developing reistence to antibiotics to developing into multicellular forms.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Evolution is a fact that has been directly observed.
      Creationism is a mythology that has been disproven.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >here comes the stupid evolutionist zealot who only spams mantras and insults people for heresy to his moronic creation mythology which was proven scientifically and mathematically impossible

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Evolution has been directly observed and there are multiple mathematical proofs for evolution. You have no idea what you're talking about, you don't know math and you don't understand biology

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >spams evolutionist mantras
            >insults you for heresy to evolutionism religion
            Get a new script.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            That proof isn't accurate as it doesn't actually model the rate of mutations that actually happen in nucleotides or amino acid sequences. This was already explained to you as well as the idiot who made the video

  2. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Moral relativism was born in 1519

  3. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Most liberals will openly tell you what they believe in are non-negotiable universal self-evident moral facts
    No they will not, and the post-structuralists, with Foucault in particular, are not that influential (at least directly) in the mainstream but they are profoundly influential in the humanities. The fields of sociology, archaeology, "queer studies", "black studies", etc are all mired in Foucauldianism.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >are all mired in Foucauldianism
      And that’s a good thing because Foucault was the only postanything that had anything valuable to say. See the fact that John Searle admired him once he was able to talk to Foucault about why he was being so obscurantist: 10% incomprehensible. That’s an admission that French philosophers must be incomprehensible in order to be taken seriously.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >And that’s a good thing because Foucault was the only postanything that had anything valuable to say
        No he didn't. John Searle is also a fricking moron.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          >No he didn't.
          Do you know how applicable the concept of regimes of knowledge are? Do you know how applicable his theory about how natural kinds of people are fabricated whole cloth?
          >John Searle is also a fricking moron.
          You’re envious.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >No they will not
      Bullshit. That’s what liberalism is. It hold that rights can be derived from man’s ability to reason. Because these come from reason they are universal and immutable, which can be discovered upon investigation. If they don’t hold this then they aren’t liberals.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      This. Not sure how anyone can disagree with that. All the so called 'scholars' in the subversive fields of postmodernismtake inspiration from Foucaults concept of 'power' and discourse analysis far more than Marx. He was also a depraved French nonce and I'm glad he caught AIDS and died before he could do anymore damage to the world.

  4. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    I guarantee you none of the CEOs of these companies have ANY idea who the frick Michael Foucault, postmodernism, poststructuralism, or moral relativism is. Moral relativists simply aren't in charge of society.

  5. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >liberalism is baseless
    yeah, we knew from the beginning

  6. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    The only time they preach moral relativism is when you're in charge. When they're in charge, suddenly moral facts (and yes, they call them moral facts) are very real.

  7. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >law of biogenesis
    Creationists just make shit up. I looked this up and it's a fake law by a creationist blog that says that
    >"that a given type of organism only arises from another organism of the same type."
    This is not real and it's literally just a creationist talking point about the idea of coming from the same kind. It isn't real and isn't a biological law.

    Why don't you guys actually read textbooks and papers from actual geneticists and biologists instead of getting EVERYTHING second hand from creationists? Stop looking at Christian sources and actually read the scientific literature

  8. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Your thread really deserved better than this OP.
    I'm sorry.

  9. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    communists deny truth is real

    they literally think it's just a way to dominate others, which is very revealing about their mindset and perspectives regarding others

    talking about "my" truth and "your" truth, and do not accept that what is true is true for everyone

    which is ironic
    considering they think all property should be held in common, but not truth

    in that sense, we can see that communism itself is not "true" but rather just a way to dominate others and accumulate power

  10. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Moral relativists removed the basis for liberal moral absolutism. It’s made morality completely arbitrary and as a result, without a foundation, it is susceptible to rapid change. For example, the rapid change in public opinion towards the lgbt community.

  11. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >All the liberalism in the world that chuds are always b***hing about isn't predicated on moral relativism, but moral absolutism. Most liberals will openly tell you what they believe in are non-negotiable universal self-evident moral facts.
    you've kind of just played yourself
    most normalcattle do believe in something that superficially looks like objective morality. This much is true. However, this belief comes from the individual "gut reactions" (aka the personal sentiments) of the person professing the belief. This itself is the product of the inability of normalgays to interrogate their own beliefs. It is simply self-evident to them that the things they believe are the correct things to believe, otherwise they wouldn't believe them.
    What you are looking at, in effect, is morons dressing up their subjective, relative moral opinions in objective language, because they're simply too stupid to understand the difference.
    They are engaging in moral relativism without calling it by name.

  12. 5 days ago
    Solitaire

    Most people are relativists who claim their relative morality is absolute.
    Question them about some things and they might even say
    >well, you see, X people have a different culture
    >THAT'S why they bathe in cowshit!
    >It's relative

    Most people are also hypocrites because being honest requires self-criticism.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *