Marriott tells desperate evacuees: Eff off, you aren't getting on our boat

[RandomGuy]

Tourists say Marriott rescue boat left them behind because they weren’t hotel guests

An evacuation effort organized by Marriott hotels is facing criticism after some American tourists said they were denied entry onto a ferry chartered to help stranded guests in the Caribbean.

The U.S. Coast Guard boat chartered by Marriott on Friday was sent to transport hotel guests from hurricane-battered St. Thomas to Puerto Rico. "These were guests who had to stay behind after the airport closed in advance of Hurricane Irma," Marriott said in a statement.

But dozens of American tourists were left stranded in St. Thomas when dock security would not let them aboard because they were not Marriott guests on the manifest.

"We had a group, probably 35 people that there was plenty of room for, that were not allowed access to the boat," Craig Schweiger told ABC News.

Naomi Michial Ayala, who was also stranded, posted a video on Facebook of the boat at the dock, writing that 30 people were turned away despite the ferry having 1,300 open seats

---------------------------------------

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tourists-marriott-rescue-boat-left-werent-hotel-guests/story?id=49814576

What I read somewhere was that they called up the chain of Marriott command and were told they couldn't let anybody who wasn't a Marriott guest on the boat.

Ah capitalism.

Time to take my money elsewhere.

[boutons_deux]

Fuck Marriott. May this inhumane fuckup cost them 100Ks of clients.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck Marriott. May this inhumane fuckup cost them 100Ks of clients.

Cost them at least one.

I will cash out my reward points, but will not stay again after that.

[ElNono]

It's likely a liability issue, tbh...

[RandomGuy]

It's likely a liability issue, tbh...

That's what Marriott said.

Stupid fucking decision anyway. If you can't accept a little extra financial liability to potentially save dozens of lives, you should be kicked in the groin. Repeatedly.

[Chucho]

And I loved their Courtyard chain, tbh...

[boutons_deux]

Fucking BigCorp lawyers, as inhumane as Capitalists.

[Blake]

There's no question jack could have fit on that piece of furniture Rose was floating on

[dabom]

There's no question jack could have fit on that piece of furniture Rose was floating on

It's about buoyancy you stupid fuck. Her and his weight puts both of them in water.

[Will Hunting]

That's what Marriott said.

Stupid fucking decision anyway. If you can't accept a little extra financial liability to potentially save dozens of lives, you should be kicked in the groin. Repeatedly.

They have a duty to their shareholders that goes against that mindset. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[tlongII]

Sounds like people just doing their job.

[baseline bum]

Wow that's pretty chickenshit. I could understand if space was tight but with 1300 open spaces that shit is unforgivable.

[baseline bum]

They have a duty to their shareholders that goes against that mindset. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Man even from that standpoint I can't understand turning away 30 people with money. It's not like broke ass people go on vacation to the Virgin Islands. Those 30 people probably would have been a lot more likely to stay in Marriott hotels in the future after having been saved from a disaster zone by Marriott. It would have been great press for them too. Now they're getting horrible press that's going to cost the company a lot of money when everyone remembers this and stays in Hilton or Holiday Inn instead.

[Will Hunting]

Man even from that standpoint I can't understand turning away 30 people with money. It's not like broke ass people go on vacation to the Virgin Islands. Those 30 people probably would have been a lot more likely to stay in Marriott hotels in the future after having been saved from a disaster zone by Marriott. It would have been great press for them too. Now they're getting horrible press that's going to cost the company a lot of money when everyone remembers this and stays in Hilton or Holiday Inn instead.

Meh, a week from now this won't even be a story and won't factor into anyone's decision on the hotel they choose.

[baseline bum]

Meh, a week from now this won't even be a story and won't factor into anyone's decision on the hotel they choose.

So it'll cost them a lot of money when people make bookings this week while the story is still fresh.

[Blake]

So it'll cost them a lot of money when people make bookings this week while the story is still fresh.

Maybe. I can't imagine enough angry Americans taking a stand if it means they pay an extra $25 elsewhere.

Feels different than the airline debacle

[Blake]

It's about buoyancy you stupid fuck. Her and his weight puts both of them in water.

Lol angry aquatic engineer

[Will Hunting]

So it'll cost them a lot of money when people make bookings this week while the story is still fresh.

It'll cost them some bookings for a week and they've avoided potential liability of an incident that occurs on a boat jam packed with disgruntled and stressed out evacuees.

Seems like the risk was much higher than the return.

[DarrinS]

Pretty shitty, tbh

[Spurtacular]

Fuck Marriott. May this inhumane fuckup cost them 100Ks of clients.

It won't. Maybe if it had been Motel 6.

[ElNono]

This is what happens when you get the legal department involved, tbh... sucks, but not uncommon at all.

The equation becomes some momentary bad PR they can battle by stating they actually rescued their guests when they didn't need to vs a couple million dollar lawsuits if a non-guest dies on the boat...

[ElNono]

Actually, rescuing the guests was also probably a request from legal to avoid lawsuits :lol

[Chucho]

Fucking BigCorp lawyers, as inhumane as Capitalists.
:lmao

God damn, you're stupid.

[DMC]

Sorry, if you're posting to facebook are you really stranded?

-Posted from Marriott

[RandomGuy]

Sounds like people just doing their job.

They were only following orders.

At what point do you step up and place some value of human beings over doing what you are told?

[RandomGuy]

Actually, rescuing the guests was also probably a request from legal to avoid lawsuits :lol

:lol

Love to see that memo.

[tlongII]

They were only following orders.

At what point do you step up and place some value of human beings over doing what you are told?

Did any human beings die as a result of their actions?

[RandomGuy]

Did any human beings die as a result of their actions?

Unknown.

Why is it relevant?

Are you shooting for "no harm, no foul"?

I can hold your baby over a cliff, as long as I don't drop it accidentally?

[boutons_deux]

Marriott's stranded, abandoned victims were in mortal danger.

Marriott's money was more important than human lives, which is exactly, repeatedly the case for all of Capitalism.

[Blake]

Did any human beings die as a result of their actions?

No, you can stay at Marriott guilt free

[tlongII]

Unknown.

Why is it relevant?

Are you shooting for "no harm, no foul"?

I can hold your baby over a cliff, as long as I don't drop it accidentally?

Your response to my post made it relevant. Do you not realize this?

[Spurtacular]

When anyone else saw the title, were they hoping it was one of the actual Marriotts telling some bitches they weren't gonna stank up his yacht? :lol

[DMC]

They were only following orders.

At what point do you step up and place some value of human beings over doing what you are told?

When it's your boat.

Just out of curiosity, what has any of the leftist white knights here done to help any of them? Anything at all...

[RandomGuy]

When it's your boat.

Just out of curiosity, what has any of the leftist white knights here done to help any of them? Anything at all...

More failed moral reasoning. Shocker.

[RandomGuy]

Your response to my post made it relevant. Do you not realize this?

That doesn't really answer why it is relevant. You do understand what the word "why" means, yes?

[Blake]

When it's your boat.

Just out of curiosity, what has any of the leftist white knights here done to help any of them? Anything at all...

I couldn't get my yacht down there in time

[boutons_deux]

I wonder if Richard Branson and friends on his destroyed Necker Island would have been refused?

destroyed once by fire, will he rebuild again?

$40K+ per night

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2448771/Richard-Bransons-Necker-Island-refurbished-costs--37-500-night.html

[DMC]

More failed moral reasoning. Shocker.

It's called pragmatism. If you're so fucking worried about it, do something yourself. If you aren't moved to help, you're not that worried about it. Why should anyone else be?


I couldn't get my yacht down there in time
translation: "I haven't done anything. I am too busy running my suck on here"

[RandomGuy]

It's called pragmatism. If you're so fucking worried about it, do something yourself. If you aren't moved to help, you're not that worried about it. Why should anyone else be?

translation: "I haven't done anything. I am too busy running my suck on here"

That isn't pragmatism.

That is you setting an arbitrary moral standard that completely fails to meet any test of common sense.


Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you devoted your life to fixing problem X?"
Person A: "No.
DMC: "Then X is not a problem we should do anything about."


This fails if I can identify an X that is clearly a problem that needs to be collectively addressed, which is trivially easy to do, i.e. child abuse, malnutrition, foster homes, etc, even if any one person does not act.

"If a person stating a problem doesn't devote their lives to a problem, then it isn't a problem."

Let's put your definition of a problem to a test then.

Do you think that child abuse is a problem?

[Blake]

It's called pragmatism. If you're so fucking worried about it, do something yourself. If you aren't moved to help, you're not that worried about it. Why should anyone else be?


translation: "I haven't done anything. I am too busy running my suck on here"

Tu quoque fallacy.

Nice work.

[RandomGuy]

Tu quoque fallacy.

Nice work.

You win a prize. As I said, failed reasoning, very easy to show.

[DMC]

That isn't pragmatism.

That is you setting an arbitrary moral standard that completely fails to meet any test of common sense.


Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you devoted your life to fixinge to fixing problem X?"
Person A: "No.
DMC: "Then X is not a problemdo anything aboutuld do anything about."


This fails if I can identify an X that is clearly a problem that needs to be collectively addressed, which is trivially easy to do, i.e. child abuse, malnutrition, foster homes, etc, even if any one person does not act.

"If a person stating a problem doesn't devote their lives to a problem, then it isn't a problem."

Let's put your definition of a problem to a test then.

Do you think that child abuse is a problem?

You just kicked your own ass.

Let's bend your example back to reality from your extreme strawman version:

Person A: "X is a problem that we need to devote our lives to addressing."
DMC: "Have you devoted your life to addressing problem X?"
Person A: "No."
DMC: "Then you truly don't feel X is a problem we should devote our lives to."

or

Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?"
Person A: "No."
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address."

You can only identify that you are concerned about X but then you make it clear for the forum that your level of concern doesn't reach action status. Why should anyone here take you seriously?

You're just trying to alleviate some of the guilt by saying "devote their lives", as if that gets you off the hook for being apathetic in the pocketbook but philanthropic in the mouth. People give to charity and help all the time without dedicating their lives to it, so it's not a defense to prosecution here to use that bifurcation as an excuse.

I do think child abuse is a problem. If I see you beating a child I'll kick the ever living shit out of you, ergo compelled to act.

[DMC]

Tu quoque fallacy.

Nice work.

Are you making a logical argument regarding the OP? If so, how can you show logically that Marriott did anything wrong by denying non-paying people access to their boat?

If you're not making a logical argument, why do you think citing a logical fallacy is relevant?

Cue queer one line quip...

[RandomGuy]

You just kicked your own ass.

Let's bend your example back to reality from your extreme strawman version:

Person A: "X is a problem that we need to devote our lives to addressing."
DMC: "Have you devoted your life to addressing problem X?"
Person A: "No."
DMC: "Then you truly don't feel X is a problem we should devote our lives to."

or

Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?"
Person A: "No."
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address."

You can only identify that you are concerned about X but then you make it clear for the forum that your level of concern doesn't reach action status. Why should anyone here take you seriously?

You're just trying to alleviate some of the guilt by saying "devote their lives", as if that gets you off the hook for being apathetic in the pocketbook but philanthropic in the mouth. People give to charity and help all the time without dedicating their lives to it, so it's not a defense to prosecution here to use that bifurcation as an excuse.

I do think child abuse is a problem. If I see you beating a child I'll kick the ever living shit out of you, ergo compelled to act.

Ah, a clarification. Good, and thank you for the correction. You even answered a direct question. Now we can get somewhere.

You think child abuse is a problem.

How have you addressed child abuse?

[DMC]

Ah, a clarification. Good. You even answered a direct question. Now we can get somewhere.

You think child abuse is a problem.

How have you addressed child abuse?

I don't do the Chumpdumper dance. Sorry.

[RandomGuy]

Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?"
Person A: "No."
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address."

I do think child abuse is a problem.



How have you addressed child abuse?


I don't do the Chumpdumper dance. Sorry.

So you have done nothing.

You don't really think child abuse is a problem, and we shouldn't care about it.

[Chris]

It's likely a liability issue, tbh...

Way too complex for OP to understand. Feelings over facts tbh :tu

[DMC]

So you have done nothing.

You don't really think child abuse is a problem, and we shouldn't care about it.

I belong to the Guardian Angel society in Austin. I donate several thousand a year.

Now you'll say "prove it" which I don't need to. You've admitted you've done nothing.

But then I didn't create a thread bashing others for not doing anything about child abuse so your tangent is moot to begin with.

Back to square one.

[Blake]

Are you making a logical argument regarding the OP? If so, how can you show logically that Marriott did anything wrong by denying non-paying people access to their boat?

If you're not making a logical argument, why do you think citing a logical fallacy is relevant?

Cue queer one line quip...

Nobody here can bend time and space to get a boat there to save people before a hurricane.

You're a tool.

[RandomGuy]

Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?"
Person A: "No."
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address."

I do think child abuse is a problem.



How have you addressed child abuse?


So you have done nothing.

You don't really think child abuse is a problem, and we shouldn't care about it.



I belong to the Guardian Angel society in Austin. I donate several thousand a year.

Now you'll say "prove it" which I don't need to. You've admitted you've done nothing.

But then I didn't create a thread bashing others for not doing anything about child abuse so your tangent is moot to begin with.

Back to square one.

I can take you at your word. Generally though, it is easier to simply answer questions the first time.

I donate a modest amount to CASA and the San Marcos food bank. Used to help cook meals at the local shelter, until time constraints made giving up an entire day every weekend got to be too much.

I do and have done what I can.


As for square one, we could simply run down a list of obvious societal problems, until we find one you haven't done anything about.

What then? Does your logic still hold?

[Axl Rose]

I can take you at your word. Generally though, it is easier to simply answer questions the first time.

I donate a modest amount to CASA and the San Marcos food bank. Used to help cook meals at the local shelter, until time constraints made giving up an entire day every weekend got to be too much.

I do and have done what I can.


As for square one, we could simply run down a list of obvious societal problems, until we find one you haven't done anything about.

What then? Does your logic still hold?
You're one of those liberals who has adopted secularized Christianity. You're such a "good person." DMC is kicking your ass fwiw.

[DMC]

Nobody here can bend time and space to get a boat there to save people before a hurricane.

You're a tool.

Are you making a formal argument? yes or no?

[DMC]

I can take you at your word. Generally though, it is easier to simply answer questions the first time.

I donate a modest amount to CASA and the San Marcos food bank. Used to help cook meals at the local shelter, until time constraints made giving up an entire day every weekend got to be too much.

I do and have done what I can.


As for square one, we could simply run down a list of obvious societal problems, until we find one you haven't done anything about.

What then? Does your logic still hold?
Yes, since I haven't thrown the first stone, like you did.

[Blake]

Are you making a formal argument? yes or no?

No. I'm saying your formal argument is a retarded fallacy.

[Blake]

Yes, since I haven't thrown the first stone, like you did.


When it's your boat.

Just out of curiosity, what has any of the leftist white knights here done to help any of them? Anything at all...


That's a stone.

[SnakeBoy]

"There were a number of additional people gathered at the dock who were not our guests who also expressed a desire to leave St. Thomas. We very much wanted to assist these other travelers to Puerto Rico, however, the Marriott team on-the-ground was told they had no authorization to board additional passengers who were not on the manifest. This was enforced by dock security," the company said.

[DMC]

No. I'm saying your formal argument is a retarded fallacy.

But my argument isn't formal.

[DMC]

That's a stone.
I didn't start the thread, ergo the "first stone".

You're a dumb motherfucker aren't ya? :lol

[Chucho]

I didn't start the thread, ergo the "first stone".

You're a dumb motherfucker aren't ya? :lol
But smarter than Boots.


Objectively, the LOLeftist team here is getting fucking thumped the last week or so.

[Chris]

I didn't start the thread, ergo the "first stone".

You're a dumb motherfucker aren't ya? :lol

:lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

what legal responsibility does Marriott have with their guests? unless it was a tour service they provided then they went out of their way to provide an extra service they didn't need to..

[DMX7]

I like JW Marriott hotels. It's a nice compromise for when I don't want to spend Ritz-Carlton type money on a hotel. First world problems... I know.

[Blake]

But my argument isn't formal.


K, it's not formal.

Doesn't take away from how it's a retarded fallacy.

[Blake]

I didn't start the thread, ergo the "first stone".

You're a dumb motherfucker aren't ya? :lol

I didn't say you threw "first stone" ergo my exclusion of the word "first".

It's still a stone.

You're an illiterate fucker aren't you.

[Blake]

But smarter than Boots.


Objectively, the LOLeftist team here is getting fucking thumped the last week or so.

Lol objectively

[Chucho]

Lol objectively

Team LOLeft took Ls all week. Y'all lost. Time to re-group, come back with new stereotypes, schticks and a new gameplan. Scour Google,MSM and social media for new names to call. Yuse guys are simple, but you all will be alright.

[DMC]

K, it's not formal.

Doesn't take away from how it's a retarded fallacy.

You don't understand the concept of fallacies in logic, arguments or rebuttals.

[DMC]

I didn't say you threw "first stone" ergo my exclusion of the word "first".

It's still a stone.

You're an illiterate fucker aren't you.

I didn't say "stone". I said "first stone".

More pedantic Chump style faggot retorts from you, trying to go pages basically saying nothing. Damn, I've gone only a few posts with you and I already want to fuck someone else.

[Blake]

Team LOLeft took Ls all week. Y'all lost. Time to re-group, come back with new stereotypes, schticks and a new gameplan. Scour Google,MSM and social media for new names to call. Yuse guys are simple, but you all will be alright.

Lol objective

[Blake]

You don't understand the concept of fallacies in logic, arguments or rebuttals.


Sure I do. You're using the tu quoque method.

Classic fallacy tbh.

[Blake]

I didn't say "stone". I said "first stone".

More pedantic Chump style faggot retorts from you, trying to go pages basically saying nothing. Damn, I've gone only a few posts with you and I already want to fuck someone else.

I didn't say "first stone". I said "stone".

You threw one. It horribly missed.

I currently don't give a shit about other stones. I'm laughing at yours.

Keep pretending you're winning here.

[Chris]

^triggered :lol

[DMC]

Sure I do. You're using the tu quoque method.

Classic fallacy tbh.

Only if it's a debate and only if I used a logical debate in the process, which I did not. Where were my premises?

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]

I never said that your actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of the claim of the OP. I said that those of you who do nothing about it aren't really that concerned about it, which is different than saying the OP's claim is false. I'm sure it's true, but it's based not on truth of falsehood of the claim, but the repercussions of it. Since the premise was implied that those stranded people were in serious need of evacuation and that Marriott was negligent or morally wrong for not evacuating them, all I needed to do was challenge the moral standards of the poster.

[Blake]

^triggered :lol

^triggered

[Blake]

Only if it's a debate and only if I used a logical debate in the process, which I did not. Where were my premises?

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]

I never said that your actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of the claim of the OP. I said that those of you who do nothing about it aren't really that concerned about it, which is different than saying the OP's claim is false. I'm sure it's true, but it's based not on truth of falsehood of the claim, but the repercussions of it. Since the premise was implied that those stranded people were in serious need of evacuation and that Marriott was negligent or morally wrong for not evacuating them, all I needed to do was challenge the moral standards of the poster.

Person A: Marriott sucks for leaving people behind
DMC: what are you white knights doing about it.

Tu quoque.

Tu estupido.

[DMC]

Person A: Marriott sucks for leaving people behind
DMC: what are you white knights doing about it.

Tu quoque.

Tu estupido.
Activism is so easy when you're so passive.

[Chucho]

Blake triggered, mad, taking Ls. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

You're one of those liberals who has adopted secularized Christianity. You're such a "good person." DMC is kicking your ass fwiw.

I am an Atheist.

Sorry.

My moral system is vastly superior to that of the bible, but thanks for playing.

[DMC]

I am an Atheist.

Sorry.

My moral system is vastly superior to that of the bible, but thanks for playing.
Your moral system seems to be the kind that doesn't compel you to do anything but run your mouth then fall back on your personal hardships when the need for moral superiority arises.

[RandomGuy]

Only if it's a debate and only if I used a logical debate in the process, which I did not. Where were my premises?

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]

I never said that your actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of the claim of the OP. I said that those of you who do nothing about it aren't really that concerned about it, which is different than saying the OP's claim is false. I'm sure it's true, but it's based not on truth of falsehood of the claim, but the repercussions of it. Since the premise was implied that those stranded people were in serious need of evacuation and that Marriott was negligent or morally wrong for not evacuating them, all I needed to do was challenge the moral standards of the poster.


Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]

Randomguy: “I am concerned about this problem.” (claim X)
DMC: “RG didn’t do anything about the problem that he claims to be concerned about” (asserts inconsistency with claim X)
DMC: “Therefore you aren’t concerned.” (claim X is false)

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

[RandomGuy]

Your moral system seems to be the kind that doesn't compel you to do anything but run your mouth then fall back on your personal hardships when the need for moral superiority arises.

Your moral system allows you to put other people at risk, without regard to potential harm to others. As long as you don't feel sick, that is the only thing that matters. :tu

[Blake]

Blake triggered, mad, taking Ls. :lmao

Lol objective

[DMC]

Your moral system allows you to put other people at risk, without regard to potential harm to others. As long as you don't feel sick, that is the only thing that matters. :tu

When you get caught up on your bills, you should do something about it.

[DMC]

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]

Randomguy: “I am concerned about this problem.” (claim X)
DMC: “RG didn’t do anything about the problem that he claims to be concerned about” (asserts inconsistency with claim X)
DMC: “Therefore you aren’t concerned.” (claim X is false)

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

The alternative is that you're incapable of anything but concern which makes you a useless yapper. Hey you ARE a liberal!

[Blake]

Activism is so easy when you're so passive.

Lol you still don't understand lack of action =/= hypocrisy.

But nice fortune cookie attempt

[RandomGuy]

When you get caught up on your bills, you should do something about it.

Let me know when you incorporate the time value of money into your analysis.

Your ignorance of financial education isn't my concern. Keep making this argument. Please. :lmao

[DMC]

Lol you still don't understand lack of action =/= hypocrisy.

But nice fortune cookie attempt

Voiced concerned + lack of action when capable to act = hipocrisy

This is true for anyone who isn't trying to rewrite common fucking sense to make blogging = saving lives.

[RandomGuy]

Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?"
Person A: "No."
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address."




Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2].

Looks like you kicked your own ass. :lol

That is some epic self-pwnage.

[DMC]

Let me know when you incorporate the time value of money into your analysis.

Your ignorance of financial education isn't my concern. Keep making this argument. Please. :lmao

I'm the one who does something. Your the one who doesn't because you lack the funds (but have enough to hit the bar regularly).

Just admit the object of your concern is just a talking point to you. You obviously have a rep on here already as a blowhard.

[RandomGuy]

The alternative is that you're incapable of anything but concern which makes you a useless yapper. Hey you ARE a liberal!

So when shown how clearly your reasoning was flawed, you ignored it, then tried for an ad hominem.

Hey you ARE a conservative!

[DMC]

Looks like you kicked your own ass. :lol

That is some epic self-pwnage.

More mental roadblocks for you.

In the first quote I did not dispute the veracity of the claim that X is a problem that needs to be addressed. I merely stated that Person A wasn't genuinely concerned about it.

Logic dude, get some.

[Pavlov]

Man, someone really made an effort to remember some things.

[DMC]

Man, someone really made an effort to remember some things.

3rd thread with the same triggered response.

Chump :lol

[Pavlov]

3rd thread with the same triggered response.

Chump :lolYou prove me right in many, many threads.

DMC :lol

[RandomGuy]

More mental roadblocks for you.

In the first quote I did not dispute the veracity of the claim that X is a problem that needs to be addressed. I merely stated that Person A wasn't genuinely concerned about it.

Logic dude, get some.

Ah, semantics.

Change X to "I believe this is a problem", and your "you don't think it is a problem because of [personal attack]"

Self-pwned.

[Blake]

Voiced concerned + lack of action when capable to act = hipocrisy

This is true for anyone who isn't trying to rewrite common fucking sense to make blogging = saving lives.


DMC thinks I can bend time and space to save lives with my yacht.

Neat.

[DMC]

Ah, semantics.

Change X to "I believe this is a problem", and your "you don't think it is a problem because of [personal attack]"

Self-pwned.
So if you change the premise then you're right.

Unfortunately for you the premise that counts is the one you made, not the one you wish you made.

[Blake]

I'm the one who does something.

How many lives did you save during the hurricane

[DMC]

DMC thinks I can bend time and space to save lives with my yacht.

Neat.

You didn't need a yacht to help people in Houston.

Did you?

[Blake]

You didn't need a yacht to help people in Houston.

Did you?

Oh another fallacy. Neat.

Red herring I'm thinking.

[Blake]

And still tu quoque

[DMC]

Oh another fallacy. Neat.

Red herring I'm thinking.

I'll take that as a "no I did nothing"

It's ok, I'm sure the people of Houston don't want you violating a logical rule to help them.

[Blake]

I'll take that as a "no I did nothing"

Of course you will. You think you're winning using tu quoque.

[Blake]

I'll take that as a "no I did nothing"

It's ok, I'm sure the people of Houston don't want you violating a logical rule to help them.

K, what's the minimum amount of help i should give to Houston before I get to call Marriott out as assholes?

If I give $5 to Joel Osteen are we good?

[DMC]

K, what's the minimum amount of help i should give to Houston before I get to call Marriott out as assholes?

If I give $5 to Joel Osteen are we good?

More than the nothing you've done.

[Blake]

More than the nothing you've done.

So if I give 1 penny to a charity, we're good?

[DMC]

So if I give 1 penny to a charity, we're good?

Ask the charity.

[Blake]

Ask the charity.

Lol the charity isn't calling me a hypocrite. You are.

I'm asking you specifically what your minimum requirement for is that gives me license to call Marriott assholes.

[Axl Rose]

I am an Atheist.

Sorry.

My moral system is vastly superior to that of the bible, but thanks for playing.
You're just like everyone else here, you've adopted a secularized form of Christian based values and have taken on a false sense of moral superiority. Your shit rings hollow as fuck and DMC is going a good job of pointing that out. You're not better than anyone.

[Blake]

Lol Christian based values.

You mean the values that call for the killing of the gays

[RandomGuy]

So if you change the premise then you're right.

Unfortunately for you the premise that counts is the one you made, not the one you wish you made.

The premise that counts is the one you actually made, dumbass.

I can, though, see why you wouldn't want your nose rubbed in such an obvious fuckup.

[RandomGuy]

Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?"
Person A: "No."
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address."




Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2].

So, let's break this shit down.

If it isn't a tu quoque fallacy, then what is it?

A couple of possibilities.

1) Red herring.


Argument A is presented by person 1.
Person 2 introduces argument B.
Argument A is abandoned.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring

Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed." ----------[Argument A is presented by person 1]
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?" ---------------------------[Person 2 introduces argument B.]
Person A: "No."------------------------------------------------------ [Person 2 introduces argument B.]
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address." [Argument A is abandoned.]

Argument A in this case would be "X is a problem that needs to be addressed"
DMC has abandoned the issue of whether X is a problem that needs to be addressed, and focused on whether Person A feels a problem should be collectively addressed, without ever really addressing "X is a problem that needs to be addressed".

[RandomGuy]

Are you making a logical argument regarding the OP? If so, how can you show logically that Marriott did anything wrong by denying non-paying people access to their boat?

If you're not making a logical argument, why do you think citing a logical fallacy is relevant?

Cue queer one line quip...

"Wrong" can be objectively demonstrated in this case.

Exposing people asking for safety of evacuation to potentially lethal harm in the form of a powerful, building destroying hurricane.

"Reckless disregard" is a legal term for a reason. Harm, or potential harm is a provable, objective metric.

I would define "wrong" as harmful.

Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to injury. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Pain is preferable to absence of pain.

Exposing someone to potential death, when you can easily, and at no cost, save them, is wrong.

[Blake]

"Wrong" can be objectively demonstrated in this case.

Exposing people asking for safety of evacuation to potentially lethal harm in the form of a powerful, building destroying hurricane.

"Reckless disregard" is a legal term for a reason. Harm, or potential harm is a provable, objective metric.

I would define "wrong" as harmful.

Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to injury. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Pain is preferable to absence of pain.

Exposing someone to potential death, when you can easily, and at no cost, save them, is wrong.

:cry yeah but what did you do to help Houston

[boutons_deux]

Exposing someone to potential death, when you can easily, and at no cost, save them, is wrong.

"socilaistic" France has a national law that criminalizes anyone who fails to help a person in distress.

Such a law would never be passed in the brutal, fuck-you, Rugged Individualism of American society.

[DMC]

So, let's break this shit down.

If it isn't a tu quoque fallacy, then what is it?

A couple of possibilities.

1) Red herring.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring

Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed." ----------[Argument A is presented by person 1]
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?" ---------------------------[Person 2 introduces argument B.]
Person A: "No."------------------------------------------------------ [Person 2 introduces argument B.]
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address." [Argument A is abandoned.]

Argument A in this case would be "X is a problem that needs to be addressed"
DMC has abandoned the issue of whether X is a problem that needs to be addressed, and focused on whether Person A feels a problem should be collectively addressed, without ever really addressing "X is a problem that needs to be addressed".

It's not a logical argument. You haven't proven Marriott did anything wrong. You only stated they did something you felt was wrong. Since "wrong" in this sense isn't a binary function, and there's no premise that insists it is, then your argument is moot. Your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise, and in fact you don't even have a clear premise, only a feeling.

I merely stated that your feeling of "wrong" wasn't strong enough to cause you to want to do what you claim to feel is right.

[DMC]

:cry yeah but what did you do to help Houston

Putting the :cry before that statement doesn't negate its strength. What did you do to help your own neighbors?

Person A criticizes the response of person B to an event in a distant area
Person A has a similar event happen in their area
Person A is able to help
Person A did not help

ergo

Person A is a hypocrite

None of this absolves person B of wrongdoing, it only paints person A as an unreliable standard for moral right and wrong.

ergo

Person A's assessment that wrong was done is dubious at best.

[DMC]

"Wrong" can be objectively demonstrated in this case.

Exposing people asking for safety of evacuation to potentially lethal harm in the form of a powerful, building destroying hurricane.

"Reckless disregard" is a legal term for a reason. Harm, or potential harm is a provable, objective metric.

I would define "wrong" as harmful.

Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to injury. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Pain is preferable to absence of pain.

Exposing someone to potential death, when you can easily, and at no cost, save them, is wrong.

Wrong cannot be objectively determined by you. That's my point, dipshit.

[Blake]

Putting the :cry before that statement doesn't negate its strength. What did you do to help your own neighbors?


It's a fallacy, dumbass. It's been explained to you in as simple terms as possible.

[Blake]

Putting the :cry before that statement doesn't negate its strength. What did you do to help your own neighbors?

Person A criticizes the response of person B to an event in a distant area
Person A has a similar event happen in their area
Person A is able to help
Person A did not help

ergo

Person A is a hypocrite

None of this absolves person B of wrongdoing, it only paints person A as an unreliable standard for moral right and wrong.

ergo

Person A's assessment that wrong was done is dubious at best.

How was person A supposed to get their yacht to the islands ahead of the hurricane?

Oh right, by donating $1 to Houston.

[DMC]

How was person A supposed to get their yacht to the islands ahead of the hurricane?

Oh right, by helping Houston.

"similar event"

I know your cuck is stuck but get it loose for this exercise.

[DMC]

It's a fallacy, dumbass. It's been explained to you in as simple terms as possible.

It's not a fallacy since there was no logical argument to begin with. It's a simple question. The obvious answer based on your floundering is you did nothing but post your queer quips on the forum.

You know I'm right, that I did not argue against right or wrong, but against the importance of your (his) hand wringing about it. You're a fraud.

[RandomGuy]

Wrong cannot be objectively determined by you. That's my point, dipshit.

It can be objectively determined. Easily so, if you are honest about it.

Is life preferable to death?

[RandomGuy]

It's not a logical argument. You haven't proven Marriott did anything wrong. You only stated they did something you felt was wrong. Since "wrong" in this sense isn't a binary function, and there's no premise that insists it is, then your argument is moot. Your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise, and in fact you don't even have a clear premise, only a feeling.

I merely stated that your feeling of "wrong" wasn't strong enough to cause you to want to do what you claim to feel is right.

I have more than feelings. You can try for a strawman if you want.

It was wrong, in an objective moral sense, to refuse people onto a boat when that refusal puts their lives in direct risk of death or grievous injury.

I have given a definition of "wrong" and "harm", and provided a statement of fact based on that harm. I don't "feel" it is wrong. That is a distortion.

[DMC]

It can be objectively determined. Easily so, if you are honest about it.

Is life preferable to death?

Explain how it can be objectively determined without you using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or circular reasoning.

[DMC]

I have more than feelings. You can try for a strawman if you want.

It was wrong, in an objective moral sense, to refuse people onto a boat when that refusal puts their lives in direct risk of death or grievous injury.

I have given a definition of "wrong" and "harm", and provided a statement of fact based on that harm. I don't "feel" it is wrong. That is a distortion.

Morality isn't objective. If it is, who made it so? Aren't you atheist?

[Blake]

"similar event"

I know your cuck is stuck but get it loose for this exercise.

Still a fallacy. You're stupid. Sorry.

[Blake]

It's not a fallacy since there was no logical argument to begin with. It's a simple question.

It's a question based on a claim of hypocrisy.

What I did/didn't do is irrelevant to what Marriott did/didn't do.

It's a fallacy. You're stupid.

[DMC]

wah wah.. wah wah waaaaaaah

[DMC]

It's a question based on a claim of hypocrisy.

What I did/didn't do is irrelevant to what Marriott did/didn't do.

It's a fallacy. You're stupid.

You want it to be irrelevant but it's not.

Besides it wasn't Marriott. It was dock security because those other people who could have evacuated days earlier and chose to stay weren't on the manifest.

So sorry, cuck face.

"There were a number of additional people gathered at the dock who were not our guests who also expressed a desire to leave St. Thomas. We very much wanted to assist these other travelers to Puerto Rico, however, the Marriott team on-the-ground was told they had no authorization to board additional passengers who were not on the manifest. This was enforced by dock security," the company said.

[Blake]

You want it to be irrelevant but it's not.


No really, it is. It's why it's a fallacy. You're stupid.

[DMC]

No really, it is. It's why it's a fallacy. You're stupid.

argument by repetition is a fallacious argument tbh

[Blake]

argument by repetition is a fallacious argument tbh


It's no argument. You're using a fallacy.

[Blake]

You want it to be irrelevant but it's not.

Besides it wasn't Marriott. It was dock security because those other people who could have evacuated days earlier and chose to stay weren't on the manifest.

So sorry, cuck face.

"There were a number of additional people gathered at the dock who were not our guests who also expressed a desire to leave St. Thomas. We very much wanted to assist these other travelers to Puerto Rico, however, the Marriott team on-the-ground was told they had no authorization to board additional passengers who were not on the manifest. This was enforced by dock security," the company said.

Lol marriott gets an out to leave 30 people behind because they weren't on the list.

"Sorry you might die but rules are rules"

[SnakeBoy]

Lol marriott gets an out to leave 30 people behind because they weren't on the list.

"Sorry you might die but rules are rules"

the Marriott team on-the-ground was told they had no authorization to board additional passengers who were not on the manifest. This was enforced by dock security

[Chucho]

Lol marriott gets an out to leave 30 people behind because they weren't on the list.

"Sorry you might die but rules are rules"


Haven't read much of anything in this tit-pinch-fest, but saw "morality", "objectivity" and "rules".

The dude doing his job, following the rules, was being objective.
I think that is immoral of him. But, objectively, dude was doing the objective duties he was ordered. he was following the rules.

Morality- if you're Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Blake or DMC is perception-based. Perception is unique to each person/sect, so it is subjective.

[DMC]

Lol marriott gets an out to leave 30 people behind because they weren't on the list.

"Sorry you might die but rules are rules"

Meanwhile you pass countless homeless people on the street daily and probably never helped anyone. They could die.

[Blake]

Meanwhile you pass countless homeless people on the street daily and probably never helped anyone. They could die.

Yes that could happen. And it would be irrelevant to this situation.

:lol I'm really sorry you're too stupid to understand the fallacy.

[DMC]

Yes that could happen. And it would be irrelevant to this situation.

:lol I'm really sorry you're too stupid to understand the fallacy.

So now lives don't matter because bigLodging isn't involved.

[Blake]

So now lives don't matter because bigLodging isn't involved.

Oh. nice goal post move.

[RandomGuy]

It can be objectively determined. Easily so, if you are honest about it.
Is life preferable to death?



Explain how it can be objectively determined without you using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or circular reasoning.

Okaaay. I can easily be more specific for this really easy question.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?

[RandomGuy]

Morality isn't objective. If it is, who made it so? Aren't you atheist?

Some aspects of morality can be objectively determined.

The nature of the universe lends itself to naturalistic inquiry.

Yes, I am an atheist.

[RandomGuy]

Haven't read much of anything in this tit-pinch-fest, but saw "morality", "objectivity" and "rules".

The dude doing his job, following the rules, was being objective.
I think that is immoral of him. But, objectively, dude was doing the objective duties he was ordered. he was following the rules.

Morality- if you're Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Blake or DMC is perception-based. Perception is unique to each person/sect, so it is subjective.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?

[DMC]

Okaaay. I can easily be more specific for this really easy question.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?

Why are you asking me? If it's objective then...

Offer your proof.

[DMC]

Some aspects of morality can be objectively determined.

The nature of the universe lends itself to naturalistic inquiry.

Yes, I am an atheist.

In order for morality to be objective it has to exist outside of human subjectivity. That then infers another standard for morality besides human opinion. Name that standard.

[Chucho]

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?

I agree with you, I'm not ready to die.

What I'm saying is, dude fulfilling his objective duties, given to him by his immediate authority supersedes both of our perceptions of morality. He put the objectivity of his livelihood being lost before what we both think would be the moral and decent thing to do.

It's a sad, harsh reality, but being a moral- subjectively "good"- person won't pay the bills. And, you being an Athiest, should understand that self-satisfaction isn't going to pay the bills either. Pats on the back or dollars in the bank? Objectively, we live in a world that is "me before him" and that's what we see here both from the dude and Marriott members vs non-Marriott members.

Is it "RIGHT"? I don't. But who makes those calls and who has the authority? That's more perception.

[Blake]

Is it "RIGHT"? I don't. But who makes those calls and who has the authority? That's more perception.

Do I think they're elitist assholes? Yup.

Will I boycott Marriott over it? Nope. Do I blame anyone if they do? Nope.

That's about it.

[Chucho]

Do I think they're elitist assholes? Yup.

Will I boycott Marriott over it? Nope. Do I blame anyone if they do? Nope.

That's about it.

Pretty much. That's your take. Everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.

[RandomGuy]

It can be objectively determined. Easily so, if you are honest about it.
Is life preferable to death?



Explain how it can be objectively determined without you using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or circular reasoning.


Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?


Why are you asking me? If it's objective then...

Offer your proof.

Such an easy question, with such an easy answer. If you are being honest.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?

[RandomGuy]

Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators [who faked the moon landings, according to your theory]?


Of course I don't. How could I.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?


Face it. You shills look very silly when you duck the jacket ] issue.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?


You seem to be confusing the issue of the way the jacket ...

Don't just say it's zero-G without giving any explanation. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that response of yours. They'd throw you out.



...and yet, you keep ignoring my question.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?


The anomalies in the video and still pictures show it was a hoax.

My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no, not "look at my videos".


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

[RandomGuy]

I agree with you, I'm not ready to die.

What I'm saying is, dude fulfilling his objective duties, given to him by his immediate authority supersedes both of our perceptions of morality. He put the objectivity of his livelihood being lost before what we both think would be the moral and decent thing to do.

It's a sad, harsh reality, but being a moral- subjectively "good"- person won't pay the bills. And, you being an Athiest, should understand that self-satisfaction isn't going to pay the bills either. Pats on the back or dollars in the bank? Objectively, we live in a world that is "me before him" and that's what we see here both from the dude and Marriott members vs non-Marriott members.

Is it "RIGHT"? I don't. But who makes those calls and who has the authority? That's more perception.

An honest answer to an easy question, thank you. It is better to be alive than dead.

That is the first step in the road to moral reasoning, i.e. an acknowledgment of something we can all determine and usually agree on.

The world is a place where we all live in societies. Like it or not, we are dependent on each other to some degree or another.

Personally, I would rather be fired than follow an order to directly endanger people's lives. The harm to me, i.e. loss of income, is objectively less than the potential harm to the people who are depending on me to do the right thing.

Life is not always easy, but this seems pretty straightforward by any measure.

[RandomGuy]

...

[SnakeBoy]

Personally, I would rather be fired than follow an order to directly endanger people's lives. The harm to me, i.e. loss of income, is objectively less than the potential harm to the people who are depending on me to do the right thing.


What would you have done when dock security told you that you could not board passengers that were not on the manifest?

[DMC]

Such an easy question, with such an easy answer. If you are being honest.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?

You don't need my opinion for an objective proof. Show your proof. It doesn't matter who shares your opinion, it's still subjective.

[RandomGuy]

It can be objectively determined. Easily so, if you are honest about it.
Is life preferable to death?



Explain how it can be objectively determined without you using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or circular reasoning.


Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?


Why are you asking me? If it's objective then...

Offer your proof.



Such an easy question, with such an easy answer. If you are being honest.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?



You don't need my opinion for an objective proof. Show your proof. It doesn't matter who shares your opinion, it's still subjective.

The only other people I have seen work so hard on not answering an honest question are conspiracy idiots. Congratulations, you get to stand in the corner with Cosmored.

We need to agree on reality. If you are so far detached from reality that you can't tell alive from dead or figure out which of those two states is preferable, that is your problem, not mine.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?

[RandomGuy]

Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators [who faked the moon landings, according to your theory]?


Of course I don't. How could I.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?


Face it. You shills look very silly when you duck the jacket ] issue.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?


You seem to be confusing the issue of the way the jacket ...

Don't just say it's zero-G without giving any explanation. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that response of yours. They'd throw you out.



...and yet, you keep ignoring my question.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?


The anomalies in the video and still pictures show it was a hoax.

My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no, not "look at my videos".

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

[Blake]

Good lord cosmored is pathetic.

[Chucho]

Good lord cosmored is pathetic.

Seriously.

Everyone knows they weren't faked. The Russians beat us to the moon by 5 years, but that was suppressed on Illuminati orders and the Muricans were allowed to be "the first" on the moon to get everyone to buy into the power and glory of capitalism.

[Blake]

Seriously.

Everyone knows they weren't faked. The Russians beat us to the moon by 5 years, but that was suppressed on Illuminati orders and the Muricans were allowed to be "the first" on the moon to get everyone to buy into the power and glory of capitalism.

It's also that he's bringing this moonbat crazy shit into this thread.

[RandomGuy]

Ok. If you're going to be that insistent.There was a hoax all right. The proof is crushing.
[/URL]

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?

Not a trick question. I hope it is easy for you.

[Chucho]

It's also that he's bringing this moonbat crazy shit into this thread.

I bet it was fun as fuck to golf on the moon.

[Blake]

I bet it was fun as fuck to golf on the moon.


Except for the bulky space suit, yeah, a 2000 yard drive would be fun

[RandomGuy]

Good lord cosmored is pathetic.

Eyup.

When one is carrying on a discussion and you find someone doing the same evasive things that he is, that should be a huge red flag.

[DMC]

The only other people I have seen work so hard on not answering an honest question are conspiracy idiots. Congratulations, you get to stand in the corner with Cosmored.

We need to agree on reality. If you are so far detached from reality that you can't tell alive from dead or figure out which of those two states is preferable, that is your problem, not mine.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?

You didn't ask me about reality but my preference. What the fuck does my preference have to do with whether or not morality is objective?

I can't tell you what's generally preferred since I can only speak for myself and it doesn't matter if people prefer fish or chicken it doesn't mean taste is objective.

The term generally means it's not objective.

[Blake]

If you go back and read, you'll see that RandomGuy brought the subject up. Start reading at post #150.

No. You're batshit crazy

[SnakeBoy]

Ok. If you're going to be that insistent.

There is no testimony because the insiders who know are probably afraid, that is if they even care.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk

Things seem to happen to people who go against the official story of a lot of things, not only Apollo.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/those-anti-establishment-pundits-who-support-the-official-story.514874/

Also, if someone were to try to come forward, the press wouldn't cover the story.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=37&p=4731597&viewfull=1#post4731597


If you want to continue this discussion, we should do so here.
(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=37&p=4731597&viewfull=1#post4731597)http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487


There was a hoax all right. The proof is crushing.
(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487)

You tell'em Cosmo

Keep up the good work and eventually the sheeple will wake up.

[DMC]

No. You're batshit crazy

At least we agree on something.

[Blake]

Thanks for the moral support. Those posters who continuously ridicule the Apollo-hoax proof and the proof that 9/11 was an inside job* are paid sophists**

Serious question. How do I apply for a paid sophist job?

[TeyshaBlue]

Does it have bennies? If so, I'm in!

[RandomGuy]

[some moral questions] can be objectively determined. Easily so, if you are honest about it.
Is life preferable to death?



Explain how it can be objectively determined without you using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or circular reasoning.


Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?


Why are you asking me? If it's objective then...

Offer your proof.



Such an easy question, with such an easy answer. If you are being honest.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?


The only other people I have seen work so hard on not answering an honest question are conspiracy idiots. Congratulations, you get to stand in the corner with Cosmored.

We need to agree on reality. If you are so far detached from reality that you can't tell alive from dead or figure out which of those two states is preferable, that is your problem, not mine.

Is life generally preferable to death in most circumstances?


You didn't ask me about reality but my preference. What the fuck does my preference have to do with whether or not morality is objective?

I can't tell you what's generally preferred since I can only speak for myself and it doesn't matter if people prefer fish or chicken it doesn't mean taste is objective.

The term generally means it's not objective.

The sun generally rises in the east. Clouds generally proceed rain. Both sun rises and rain are objective things that can be readily, and independently ascertained.

You spend a lot of effort not answering this question, just like Cosmored spends a lot of effort dodging, easy, honest, and fair, questions.

It's almost as if being honest isn't important to either of you. If your beliefs are so weak, they can't withstand honest query, that says volumes about whether anyone else should give a shit about your opinion, any more than anyone here cares about "faked moon landings"

I'll make it even easier and shorter. Maybe that will help.

My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no.

Is life generally preferable to death?

[RandomGuy]

Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators [who faked the moon landings, according to your theory]?


Of course I don't. How could I.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?


Face it. You shills look very silly when you duck the jacket ] issue.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?


You seem to be confusing the issue of the way the jacket ...

Don't just say it's zero-G without giving any explanation. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that response of yours. They'd throw you out.



...and yet, you keep ignoring my question.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?


The anomalies in the video and still pictures show it was a hoax.

My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no, not "look at my videos".

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

[DMC]

The sun generally rises in the east. Clouds generally proceed rain. Both sun rises and rain are objective things that can be readily, and independently ascertained.

You spend a lot of effort not answering this question, just like Cosmored spends a lot of effort dodging, easy, honest, and fair, questions.

It's almost as if being honest isn't important to either of you. If your beliefs are so weak, they can't withstand honest query, that says volumes about whether anyone else should give a shit about your opinion, any more than anyone here cares about "faked moon landings"

I'll make it even easier and shorter. Maybe that will help.

My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no.

Is life generally preferable to death?

The problem here is you're trying to demonstrate that morality is objective but in doing so you're asking me for my opinion. An objective truth doesn't need my opinion. If my opinion is the deciding factor then that makes it subjective by default.

In fact, the term "generally" implies not always. If morality was objective we would not need to use the term "generally" because it would always be true.

[RandomGuy]

The problem here is you're trying to demonstrate that morality is objective but in doing so you're asking me for my opinion. An objective truth doesn't need my opinion. If my opinion is the deciding factor then that makes it subjective by default.

In fact, the term "generally" implies not always. If morality was objective we would not need to use the term "generally" because it would always be true.

So, basically, you are the Cosmored of moral reasoning. You can't determine whether living is better than dying. :lmao

Got it.

[RandomGuy]

If morality was objective we would not need to use the term "generally" because it would always be true.

"IF X, then Y" If morality was objective (X), [then] we would not need to use the term "generally" because it would always be true. (Y)

It is possible to determine things objectively, and use the term "generally". Clouds generally precede rain. Lions generally live in Africa. Humans generally don't survive falls from five story buildings. I have given you situations were reality can both be objectively determined [X], but the term "generally" is needed, because they are NOT always true. [Y]

Each of these statements are statements of observable facts about the universe. We need to use the term "generally" to allow for the probabilistic aspects of the universe.

Your assertion is rejected on that basis.

[DMC]

It is possible to determine things objectively, and use the term "generally". Clouds generally precede rain. Lions generally live in Africa. Humans generally don't survive falls from five story buildings.

Each of these statements are statements of observable facts about the universe. We need to use the term "generally" to allow for the probabilistic aspects of the universe.

Your assertion is rejected on that basis.

You don't understand the definition of the term objective and you certainly don't understand the implications of having objective morality. If objective morality exists then there's a right and wrong even if everyone on the planet disagrees with it. That means there's a divine edict dictating right and wrong.

You really need to more clearly define your terms. I think you're being wishy-washy about it and trying to use the term objective to mean generally agreed upon.

You're also confusing a philosophical question with a scientific one. Morality is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

[RandomGuy]

...

[RandomGuy]

You don't understand the definition of the term objective and you certainly don't understand the implications of having objective morality. If objective morality exists then there's a right and wrong even if everyone on the planet disagrees with it. That means there's a divine edict dictating right and wrong.

You really need to more clearly define your terms. I think you're being wishy-washy about it and trying to use the term objective to mean generally agreed upon.

You're also confusing a philosophical question with a scientific one. Morality is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

I understand the implications of objective morality. It doesn't mean that there is a divine edict. Again, that doesn't follow.

Morality is where philosophy and science occasionally overlap.

We have to have some means of determining what is real and what isn't.

(shrugs) provide a definition of "objective".

[DMC]

I understand the implications of objective morality. It doesn't mean that there is a divine edict. Again, that doesn't follow.

Morality is where philosophy and science occasionally overlap.

We have to have some means of determining what is real and what isn't.

(shrugs) provide a definition of "objective".

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

If you accept that definition, then explain how morality meets that criteria. If you don't agree with it, then how are you defining it in the way you're using it?

[spurraider21]

I don't think you could objectively say life is better than death. It's pretty nonsensical. I'm what way or what standard are you measuring "better"

To a lion, his prey is much better dead.

And if you ask a given organism what it prefers for itself, you are by definition inserting bias and are thus straying from objectivity

[SnakeBoy]

Thanks for the moral support. Those posters who continuously ridicule the Apollo-hoax proof and the proof that 9/11 was an inside job* are paid sophists** who know that Apollo was a hoax and that 9/11 was an inside job. They're trying to create the illusion of wide support on the internet to sway the viewers' opinions. I don't know how they can sleep at night.


Well you just got keep posting away to spread the message just like advertisers do. Don't let them box you in with logic, some sheeple just don't want to wake up.

[SnakeBoy]

I don't think you could objectively say life is better than death. It's pretty nonsensical. I'm what way or what standard are you measuring "better"

To a lion, his prey is much better dead.

And if you ask a given organism what it prefers for itself, you are by definition inserting bias and are thus straying from objectivity

If only we could find out what rocks think. I'm pretty sure they'd be objective.

[DMC]

I don't think you could objectively say life is better than death. It's pretty nonsensical. I'm what way or what standard are you measuring "better"

To a lion, his prey is much better dead.

And if you ask a given organism what it prefers for itself, you are by definition inserting bias and are thus straying from objectivity

You cannot objectively say anything is better than anything else, because there has to be an opinion involved. You can say "If more = better, then 4 is better than 3" but you cannot accurately say "4 is better than 3" or "more is better" objectively.

But thanks Philo, for piling on after the debate has pretty much ended. Way to put your neck out there.

[spurraider21]

You cannot objectively say anything is better than anything else, because there has to be an opinion involved. You can say "If more = better, then 4 is better than 3" but you cannot accurately say "4 is better than 3" or "more is better" objectively.

But thanks Philo, for piling on after the debate has pretty much ended. Way to put your neck out there.
We can't all be on F5 duty

[spurraider21]

If only we could find out what rocks think. I'm pretty sure they'd be objective.
People can be objective. Opinions and preferences though? No.

[DMC]

We can't all be on F5 duty

:lol

[DMC]

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

If you accept that definition, then explain how morality meets that criteria. If you don't agree with it, then how are you defining it in the way you're using it?

Someone abandoned ship without ever saying goodbye.

[RandomGuy]

Someone abandoned ship without ever saying goodbye.

Been busy.

Lunch hours have been spent on training for volunteer work. (look up Team Rubicon, fascinating organization)

[DMC]

Been busy.

Lunch hours have been spent on training for volunteer work. (look up Team Rubicon, fascinating organization)

If true then kudos to you - honestly.

[RandomGuy]

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

If you accept that definition, then explain how morality meets that criteria. If you don't agree with it, then how are you defining it in the way you're using it?

Ok then, is the truth of life being preferable to death a question that can be answered outside of biases?

What bias could effect answering such a question?

[spurraider21]

Ok then, is the truth of life being preferable to death a question that can be answered outside of biases?
No, imo.


What bias could effect answering such a question?
Personal bias

[DMC]

Ok then, is the truth of life being preferable to death a question that can be answered outside of biases?

What bias could effect answering such a question?

The term "preferable" instantly creates subjectivity. It's an objective truth that death is an inevitable conclusion to life, but preferences are always subjective to the one who prefers, even if everyone on the planet agrees.

Otherwise, even if everyone on the planet disagreed and preferred death over life, the objective truth (life is preferable to death) would overrule them - ergo divine edict.

If you had statistics showing that people prefer life over death, your stats would be objective.