degraded morality might not be the right word for it i concede, but basically your morals stop aligning with the rest of humanity’s general morals
what you consider “good” or “bad” drifts from everyone else, and this would be bad news for the rest of humanity
common sense to weaklings 
So you used an assumption with no basis to assume what I was talking about?
The basis of one’s experience is used to interpret. Most conversations operate this way without having a source that explicitly states what the underlying meaning is
In my experience, I’ve had many people making presuppositions including myself on skill sets and have never considered it a bad thing.
How would I know his experiences?
I was referring to experiences of how the language has been used in the past. Even if I think believing you’re above others is fine, I know that it’s generally associated with arrogance which has a negative connotation in mainstream culture
Then shouldn’t he be able to connect the dots of me literally claiming “magic is good for humanity” that I wouldn’t be contradicting my very own statement
Is that not common sense to use previous statements to understand frame of reference?
I don’t know that he knows all about your position on this especially considering part of it is way up there. Even if he did, you might’ve changed it. I’m not saying it was the most likely thing given all the relevant information but it was understandable. That’s why I’m saying don’t shame him
Sorry, I forgot that I should presuppose every forumer is illiterate for a second
what is moral positivity?
what is moral negativity?
can you produce a definition that includes all things morally positive and excludes all things morally negative? vice versa?
can you objectively justify why suffering is bad?
can you objectively justify why happiness is good?
Not gonna rebut this. It’s not a valid point and it’s just so much of your usual toxicity and contentiousness. I shouldn’t have gotten involved
If you examine it thoroughly, although it was ad-hominem, you did in fact ask me to assume that he hadn’t read my posts.
Or even if he did read my posts, think my stance changed over nothing.
Which is a more reasonable assumption than him being illiterate considering how massive this thread is. Over nothing? You can change your thinking without giving outward signs of it
That was obviously an insult, insults aren’t made to be accurate
Is it logical to argue without reading other’s arguments??
But assuming somebody changed their position without any basis isn’t logical.
oh my god
Should I be dissapointed in or proud of myself for making this
I already pointed out that it was an insult in lieu of an argument. That’s why I didn’t take any time to rebut it
Again, the thread is massive and it repeats a lot. You don’t need to read everything regarding a discussion in order to contribute useful points to it. This is the case in philosophy and science
but allowing that they could’ve is logical. He didn’t need to assume that you changed your position, as even if you only might’ve changed your position, it would make it possible that you were going against it
I am incredibly confused rn on whats happening I wont lie
Yes, but it is logical to assume someone would at least read, say, the first 10-20 posts or posts around what had been answered
It isn’t logical to skip to replying before reading less than 10 posts
Yes, I don’t doubt that someone on the forums acted illogically.
