It’s news to me but it looks more and more like you may be right. I just learned that nonmoral is a word.
No big deal as this “is neutral a moral value” thing is 100% semantic.
However if you have always thought hats were called “shoes” and people start making fun of you for walking around barefoot, you aren’t an asshole to say you still use footwear. Then when someone nicer starts patiently explaining why you are barefoot if you never wear “shoes” on your feet, you aren’t an asshole for patiently explaining why you disagree.
The analogy has breaking points. Ann_Hedonia’s point, and yours, was a little more than “moral value doesn’t include neutral”. We still have disagreements beyond semantics which haven’t been explored. Also, what’s the likeliness of someone going 26 years without ever realizing “shoes” means footwear, versus realizing “moral value” is on a spectrum, but inexplicably doesn’t include neutral? That’s like saying zero isn’t an integer, because when we say “none” we mean zero. It just doesn’t sit right.
Well, and the fact that in a discussion on morals, you went directly to your moral duty to yourself to satisfy your personal desires.
I think it’s fucked up, but its a very Republican concept of morality.
YWTF posted a definition that is substantially identical to mine, but she was promptly suspended from the boards (and may soon be banned) for violating her topic ban.
I’m just trying to defend my definition of ‘woke’, in the pejorative sense conservatives use it. I’m not endorsing any of YWTF’s other views. Besides, I was in that thread first!
I hope everyone who pointlessly engaged this fucking troll over the last 24 hours in that thread is happy that they contributed to the incel’s gaining sexual release a dozen times in a day for the first time since he was orphaned.
The issue isn’t that you took a position, it’s that you won’t shut the fuck up once you’ve taken it. And I say that by the standards of the SDMB, where “not letting shit go” is an Olympic sport.
You seem to purposely miss that your definition is taken into account as a valid but limited one, what you blindly miss is that most anti science and bigoted groups are using the word now as a way to get around about how racist and anti science they are.
I already saw this rodeo before, it is disingenuous to say that just because conservative leaders didn’t use the word in the precise way you stipulate, that that then it does not fit your limited definition. It is a very, very stupid thing to say as the misleaders of the Republicans did it before by not saying precisely that “covid was a hoax”. It does not help your stupid position that in the end the republican base got the message that it was a hoax anyhow, and after looking at what they are doing in congress now, they continue to pander to the base that got the misunderstanding.
Once a whistle is set, there is a lot of effort that is needed from conservatives to defuse that misunderstanding, but sadly, many like you choose to live with the “plausible” explanation from leaders that still leaves the harmful misinformation or harmful word word meanings to thrive among their base.
I have to admit that he can be useful when posting technical, mostly IT advice, and he gave me and others some valuable help in these threads. But as for his posting on political or social matters, I agree that he’s useless and obnoxious. He always reminds me of an android that’s useful for technical things but unable to grok social interactions and concepts.
Wouldn’t it be rude of me to ignore, say, GIGObuster’s long and thought out post? Is it more considerate of me to lie and say, oh, now I get it! Then never post on the subject again, because I really don’t get it?