So if the carni was weak and unkempt while the vegan had massive titties, it wouldn’t be propaganda?

Lies. Deception. You opened with sea lioning.

That’s you quoting me.
Now I’m quoting you, quoting me.

It’s literally my first reply to your original comment. That’s why you called it my opening.

It could be possible.
But what objective moral framework exists? One that doesn’t depend on any observer.

That wasn’t my real question. The one I asked originally.
The one you just quoted.

You’re still avoiding that one. You could just say yes or no.

I assure I wasn’t.
I did in my previous comment. That was intentional, as you kept bringing it up.

But prior to that was a genuine question. An opportunity for you to actually justify and support your view. You could have said “Yes it’s still propaganda.” But instead you seem resigned in your refusal to engage with the idea. So, yah I made some fun and pushed your favorite button.

Should you wish to engage in a constructive discussion. Let me know. I’ll be here.

It’s a question. Not even a statement, let alone a lie.
It’s a question designed to look for assumed bias, by flipping the roles of the example to see if the judgement of the situation still holds.

If the judgement fails to hold, it’s likely a biased judgement.

Your unwillingness to engage in the question is a tassit admission of your bias, and your awareness of it. Your disregard for the importance of that bias suggests a sense of superiority. That your opinion supercedes any rules. Can you think of anyone else who shares that kind of confidence?

All? Of course not.

When using all or every in a question, the answer is pretty reliably, no.

I tried to engage. You refused to reciprocate.

Objective, is independent of interpretation or even observation.

Using morality and objective together, means you’re using at least one of those words wrong.

It’s not.

Edit: Actually the film itself is organic… I think.
The cemicals on the film that record and hold the image aren’t organic. That’s what I was thinking of. The actual capture chemistry.

You’re bad at mind reading. I’m entertained, amused. Quite happy realy. You saved me from boredom.

I’m not sure that your problems are yet. You aren’t engaging with my pertaining questions or points, so I can’t really evaluate what they may be.

Which is exactly why it’s subjective.

Then it’s not objective. It’s subjective to attributes of what’s involved.

You’re trying to avoid obvious simple problems in your discourse here.

You didn’t evaluate the morality of the rocks.

If this is going to be a term now, I need to point out that digital cameras aren’t organic. Neither is film. Tin types may be, I’m not sure of the chemistry with those.

deleted by creator

Claiming morality is objective, requires a moral judgement for one rock falling on another and crushing it.

Three things:

1. It’s a simple bias test, to flip things and see how you care then. You failed, I think.
2. They’re both white in the comic. Where’s the racism?
3. People of all races have historically eaten meat.

So if the carni was weak and unkempt while the vegan had massive titties, it wouldn’t be propaganda?

It’s also not left wing architecture. It’s the cross roads of a left wing housing initiative, and a right wing refusal to spend money on the public good. What you get is something akin to unsecured prison architecture.