Have you ever influenced anyone to walk away from relativism?

Posting through a second proxy

If they "walk away", they didn't understand it in the first place, or they're merely burying their head in the sand.
There is a reason it's become so pervasive an idea amongst the intelligentsia; because it's an accurate observation of the nature of perception.

What I struggle with, is getting people to understand that relativism and absolutism are not actually dichotomous at all, that they are both accurate and coequal as descriptions of the combined noumenal and phenomenal world that we find ourselves in. Think of it like a quantum superposition; it's both at the same time.

That elements of the world are relative is an absolute, that elements of the world are absolute is relative.
The two positions simultaneously contradict and support one another in an inescapable paradox. It's a matter of perspective and it's a hard fact; it's absolutely relatively absolutely relatively...
A strange loop. A fractal.

Attached: 1463358078056.gif (285x257, 1.2M)

>I've seen some people come around on their own though.

What made them get a grip?
For me it being physically disgusted by 'fat acceptance' and gross people just shaping truth around their indulgence.

Did you watch the House committee hearing today? They want to outlaw being white.

Attached: D9B328D3-A36C-4CCF-BAF2-D88749E294A9.jpg (768x571, 102K)

>For me it
*for me it was

No shit user, no shit.

Attached: POLitical compass-min.jpg (2448x3264, 1008K)

Cool drawing my guy.

Attached: 9EAE70BD-5195-45E4-BD6F-98D3652CAD50.jpg (748x1024, 277K)

>This

it should be a boys right of passage that he has to kill a politician.

It was scary desu. We need to move to bitchute

bitchute.com/video/wV8dlev5IH6F/

Whatever your intentions are, you're derailing an important discussion, you fuck.
Go start your own thread.
One thread. One topic.

Attached: EB41F8BB-C770-4849-9F01-9AAF297C12E9.gif (474x327, 2.37M)

posts like these just show how weak the average pol user is, i look at the replies and see spineless cowards, no real man would ever reject violence against his oppressor

You’d rather spend 3 posts calling me a glownigger than discuss anything.

Fuck off.

People should be talking about the federal reserve and how to end it. And they should be aware that politicians think white pride is hateful.

Attached: 94CCDE9F-D542-4BFF-ADE9-9F90DCFF21CF.jpg (324x499, 36K)

Thanks. Did you draw that one?

>walk away from relativism?

That is stupid

That's the spirit lad

No, and if you were actually the feds then you would realize how ridiculous that assertion is.
I didn't actually, but it doesn't surprise me. The overton window is shifting away from them so they are doubling down. I doubt it will end well for them, either way.

Attached: 385C4EF2-9751-41E0-A047-712D055C1DCB.gif (500x279, 971K)

If you mean moral relativism, all the time, because morality is not subjective and anyone with an IQ over 100 can recognise that.

>morality is not subjective
Morality is inherent to the individual, there is no morality to be found external to the individual.
Without people there would be no morality to be found on the entire planet.
Morality and moral systems must therefore be able to differ between different men, as they are bound to hold different perspectives.
Thus morality is subjective.
Prove me wrong.

>People should be talking about the federal reserve and how to end it.

Okay. The way you're going to end that is some kind of software replacing the credit system on some scale, in some partial way. In a way that does it more efficiently, with more trust that Fed Reserve notes.
>Inb4 Blockchain shill
Whatever new system you can replace it with that pulls in adopters.

Based
youtu.be/AnaQXJmpwM4

>Morality and moral systems must therefore be able to differ between different men, as they are bound to hold different perspectives.

So the objective morality is national/ racial/ cultural territories with strong boundaries.

That's one perspective yes, multiple coexisting objective moralities, but it is a perspective that can only be seen from a bird's-eye view, as even within those territories, you'll find variances of opinion and perspective.

> walk away from relativism
yes and no. some people are too far gone.

Attached: 51b1a4aaaab221c941d7c21dfefb5a2c.jpg (314x350, 26K)

I like this description, bar the final para.

That just comes across as stoner-babble, rather devoid of substance.

Good, though.

>>morality
Complicated. Not sure what we're defining morality as exactly.
Is it the thing you do so that disease and weakness don't get your tribe eaten?
Godliness can't be defined but ungodly cringe can be spotted and resonates deeply in us. We know those ungodly people are the end of their genetic line.

To veer in another direction; I don't believe just any set of random actions can be a code for thriving.
I don't believe Darwin's random mutation theory for the origin of traits.
No creature has or is developing any random traits. Grace and fitness is like getting the blessing of something in a mirror dimension.
Nobody can look at the fittest of a species and tell me they got that way randomly.
Again, I can't say what it is specifically, but it is not random noise.

If can "walk away" from the doctrine, you either never fully grasped its merit and validity in the first place, or you are simply deluding yourself after having seen the horrific side-effects from its adoption.

My algorithm notes on the desk in front of me also seem rather devoid of substance to my cat, but I can't fault you for not understanding me drawing parallels between the logical topology of a strange loop and the geometrical topology of a fractal when talking about paradoxes given you haven't had the same experiences as me.

That's one definition that applies. I think I understand what you're talking about. I sometimes call that... thing that the 'lattice of coincidence':
>youtube.com/watch?v=k4nvmyMU9is
Or just the divine hand of God. There's definitely a pattern.
As for randomness, look at computers: there is no true randomness when we know how the system is built.

My point there is that it is not ALL relative.
There is a code that must meet certain conditions between optimal and perfection.
There can be some variance but there is no Relativism.

yeah

But to say we know anything about God's moral preference, either through books written by men or whatever, is just arrogance.
God is assumed to necessarily be infinite, thus it stands to reason that he would hold all moral codes equally, in infinity, out of necessity of being infinite.
Maybe there is a certain prescribed set of rules to be tested (or whatever he's doing) here, but there are also other universes with different universal constants; different laws and rules.
Infinite universes with an infinite range of universal constants. Relative to each local sector, but absolute when taken as a whole. Phenomenal and noumenal. It's all the same, just a matter of perspective.

>There can be some variance but there is no Relativism.
Variance in perspective leads to contradiction.
The only way of escaping the fact that two opposing views are equally true when considered from different perspectives is to consider them as relative truths.
If there's an objective morality, we cannot know it from our limited perspective.