Experience as an artist, and as a horny fucker and lover leads me to art without craft is like sex without love.
Your clumsy attempts to paraphrase me, either are off topic, or confused.

There is no argument necessary to counter crapology.

There is no argument necessary to counter crapology.

Craft without Love is like Sex without Art — Janus

no it is not.

It's a comment of modern artists who don't get their hands dirty.

I go with 2, although I kind of like 3 also. — T Clark

Craft without Art is like Sex without Love. — Janus

HEADSLAP!

Which is why morality is social construct. — René Descartes

`The details are constructed in the social. But the fact that humans are moral beings is natural enough.

According to the devil, where is morality from? — René Descartes

I do not understand the nature of the question. Why are you asking it?

Where does that morality come from? — René Descartes

There is no unitary or precise answer to that question. You'd have to ask a mother crocodile who cares for her young. Or any other number of animals throughout evolution from which such emotions derive.

Ok, but why? Part of the point I posted this, is to get feedback of reasoning or supporting evidence that I'm incorrect, as I haven't come up with much for counter-evidence so far. — Tyler

Since you have not supported this with any evidence whatever, its a bit rich trying to pretend that the arguments that have been offered to you already are unreasonable.

Your suggestion is prima facie absurd since there are no memories without the sense experience to collect them in the first place. A foetus can have no memories, and can only begin to form them by the active sensation of the world in which it thrives.
Consciousness must precede memory.

Mr Phil: You are ignoring what evolution tells us about why you love your mother. — LD Saunders

Evolution cannot tell you anything. Evolutionary theory can suggest how certain traits persist. But cannot suggest 'reasons' why.
Millions of creatures (including humans) have been born, persist and live to make viable progeny that DO NOT love their mothers.
I could name a few humans who hate their mothers and yet still have loving relationships with their children; others still that have children in whom they have no interest.
Where is your evolutionary psychology now?

I don't see my usage of the word contradicting these. — BlueBanana

Well duh.

Something "existing" outside "physical reality" doesn't sound meaningful at all. — Maw

Something existing outside reality is a contradiction in terms.

Is there an ultimate standard of morality, something outside physical reality?
2 hours ago — Issac Scoggins

How could this even be possible? There is no morality without moral beings. Moral beings are real.

That however doesn't impose anything objectively, the act is wrong always. — bahman

No act is always wrong.

See, you're making an objective claim here. Things depend on situations, but there can still be an objective answer for any given situation. — BlueBanana

Like I said, you do not really appreciate what 'objective' means.

Charleton: Marx lived off of hiss capitalist friend, Engels, and also played the stock market, which are two more signs of his hypocrisy. You never addressed my points though: Since Marx claimed that everything was predetermined, then why claim a revolution was needed? Also, if people are merely a product of their social class, then how come he and Engels, especially Engels, a wealthy capitalist, were communists? — LD Saunders

At one point Marx was so poor he pawned his clothes.
He did not believe that every thing was PRE-determined. All determinists recognise that ACTIONS lead to consequences, and Marx believed that historical change required a struggle.

come he and Engels, especially Engels, a wealthy capitalist, were communists? — LD Saunders

Stupid question.
Engels was a communist because he saw what tragic lives the workers in his father's factory lived.

I didn't say that, or any else "is", would be where the "ought" would be gotten from. — BlueBanana

Personally I don't believe in absolute morals, so even though I have an opinion on normative ethics, I consider the thing to be that it's objectively true that I have a subjective opinion, and not that I subjectively believe something to be objectively true (this applies to most other fields of my philosophy as well). — BlueBanana

Oh?
I think you might not really be very clear on the meaning of the object/subject distinction.

I don't say that is my belief, I merely recognize it as a theoretical possibility.

And reflect that you are also going to fall into Hume's is/ought problem.
— charleton — BlueBanana

Just because killing is painful does not mean it ought to be considered immoral.

There are any number of moral leaders who have claimed the objectivity of their moral stance and all have without exception become out of date.

which are approximately 50% heritable. — LD Saunders

99% of all stats are made up on the spot.

Any moral theory that wishes to state what is a morally right thing to do should ground this claim on something. For this to be done, the theory would have to claim objective morality, and thus some sort of a metaphysical explanation and reason for the morality. Most normative ethic theories don't go this far, however. — BlueBanana

I see you immediately falling down on the myth that a moral system can be objective. And reflect that you are also going to fall into Hume's is/ought problem.

It makes Marx a hypocrite, doesn't it? — LD Saunders

No, not in any way.
Marx lived in extreme poverty.

I believe so.. WE are the only existential creatures.. Perhaps aliens on other planets too:)? — schopenhauer1

You've never met my dog.

but I doubt the amnesia is a complete lack of memories. — Tyler

Generally amnesia is partial. Not in all cases. And there are all to many cases where the loss is profound. Nonetheless, pretending that consciousness is nothing more than memory access is absurd.

Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean words are not facts? Words, as soon as they are spoken, written or typed, no longer exist in one’s mind but become part of the shared reality. — CuddlyHedgehog

I think he means that people tend to privilege words and their definition way beyond their role as representative approximations of the things they seek to denote. Nothing important about the existence of a written word is real. Words are wholly dependant on the language community which claims to understand them. They have no independent, absolute or unambiguous meaning.

Theory of Forms. The notion that objects more or less conform to an ideal. It places the logos above the world of appearances.

Failure to understand that words are not reality. — T Clark

The dubious legacy of Plato.

Did I mention that you're a dick? — T Clark

You'll never have me sweetie! I'm out of your league.

What is your take on this? Russia seems to be increasingly concerned that it is not given sufficient importance on the world's stage. — Agustino

I think you are confusing Putin with Trump.
Russia has every right to be concerned by the moron in the Whitehouse. The difference between Trump and Putin is vast. Putin is making a statement with measured words, using his generous intelligence.
By comparison Trump is a chimpanzee.

The meaning of this video is that the USA is going crackpot.

So I do not say why the idea that something 'exists in the understanding' is connected to the quite different claim that something 'exists in reality'. — Londoner

In other word's the thread is as valid were you to call it "Ontological Argument Proving Harry Potter's Existence"

Let's just remember that those economic sanctions were put into place because Russia attacked it's neighbour, annexed part of it and still is supporting an ongoing low-intensity conflict. — ssu

Let's remember that the Ukraine coup was the result of EU and USA help.

You stand on firm philosophical ground, I've noticed! — Abdul

He also likes a good massage.

gives me the impression he has a mean or nasty view of life. — T Clark

That's you. Not me.

Try and read his post again What do you not understand by the phrase "My view is that since humans are generally selfish, happiness then becomes a scarce resource: The happiness for one individual comes at the expense of the happiness of another."

. Try not to be a snowflake.

So, to be conscious of any given factor, the memory system just needs to access memory of the factor, — Tyler

You have no warrant to conclude this. Since and existence with no sensation is impossible, sensory input is an indelible part of consciousness.
It is, however possible to live with a complete lack of any memory. In rare cases of profound amnesia, consciousness persists with no reference to memories, patients living in the eternal present, conscious but utterly confused living moment by moment.

006. Γνῶθι μαθών Know what you have learned
007. Ἀκούσας νόει Perceive what you have heard
008. Σαυτὸν ἴσθι Be/Know yourself
011. Φρόνει θνητά Think as a mortal
015. Φίλοις βοήθει Help your friends
020. Φιλίαν ἀγάπα Love friendship
028. Φίλοις εὐνόει Be kind to friends
037. Φίλῳ χαρίζου Do a favour for a friend
044. Υἱοὺς παίδευε Educate your sons
048. Φιλόσοφος γίνου Be a seeker of wisdom
058. Ὃ μέλλεις, δός Do what you mean to do
070. Ἁπλῶς διαλέγου Speak plainly
105. Φιλίαν φύλαττε Guard friendship
113. Γῆρας προσδέχου Accept old age
147. Τελευτῶν ἄλυπος On reaching the end be without sorrow — Bitter Crank

This is as far as I can get in one session. I've throw out the obvious stuff, and the religious BS.

What are your thoughts about this propositional attitude? — Posty McPostface

Depends on who is saying it and about whom.
According to you, you know best, but it might be true that another knows best for you since you cannot know everything - another might know something you do not.
Something as trivial as a choice of film to watch on TV, could fit here.
Or a doctor might be able to suggest a medication you'd never ever heard of.

God is not the greatest conceivable being- many philosophers have argued this, many will do so in the future. — The Curiorist

Since we don't know what god is and the whole point of the exercise is to define god AS "the greatest conceivable being", your statement is empty.

Should happiness be a right or a reward? — Abdul

Happiness is not in the gift of anyone but yourself. It cannot be a right nor a reward, since it is not a thing whose supply is restricted by the state or any other legislative body.

The happiness for one individual comes at the expense of the happiness of another. — Abdul

What a nasty and mean view of life you have!!
What twisted ideology has led you to this absurd position?

My point was that we are existential creatures, unlike most other creatures. — schopenhauer1

What other creatures would you include here?
It seem to me that "existential" as a adjective is not adequate to the idea you are trying to convey.