>round You're entering vocabulary, which is already subjective and arbitrary. You're stuck on language and ego, which are tools, not reality. >Do I really need to make this pointless argument No. You're silly, and more interested in your mechanisms than existence. Even if you wanted to answer my questions, you didn't-- Objectivity's definer, and his qualifications, will go unknown I suppose
Your godawful suppositions aside, what are you trying to prove? I'm telling you nothing, but you're keen on telling me SOMETHING, and I have no idea what or why. Please, Russia, enlighten me with your objectivity
That is exactly why I should've not answered in the first place. You're not interested in answers anyway, too far into semantics
Josiah Cooper
Everything is semantics. Our next evolution. words-creatures above us, are wholly semantics and beyond us should they exist. Words =/= Experience, and that aside, you can't even words me *whatever* you're trying to say >You're not interested in answers anyway I'm interested in whatever you're even trying to say. You don't even have baseline arguments / suppositions. You aren't saying anything, but you're getting worked up regardless
You don't actually need arguments for that, because it's not up to debate.
John Sullivan
You already asked that, I don't have any solid objectives
Grayson Hill
>You don't actually need argument for that For a logic-boy, arguments seem very important. Self-evidence isn't true, after all >it's not up to debate That probably makes life easy. What isn't? And who decides it? Which god? How? What qualifies them? You still refuse to give me a straight answer. I'll still love you regardless, sweetheart
>You already asked that Very sorry. More interested in the pillars you build your life around than your individual goals
Easton Edwards
I don't get where you're going with it. That's the very definition of objective truth, it's not up to debate and you don't need argumentation, because it's already proven. Extremely broad question
>because it's already proven By who? For subjectivity folk, like me, it's proven by ourselves >Extremely broad question I have no idea what statement you're making, what assertion you're asserting. You're trying to say something, but you're saying nothing. Now you're just arguing objectivity vs subjectivity, which makes me just want to bully you, because both sides are sales memes, and ripe grounds for memes and bullshit semantics, which you objectivity folk love so much
