It's not about a person, it's about nature. Many cultures viewed the seasons like a cycle of renewal, ending in winter and beginning in the spring.

I didn't even know cider was something else in the us of a

Couldn't agree more. Except for that frieren thing. A quick google search confirms it's generic gay weeb shit #251364

Just take a longer spear duh

Since they never address it in any way, to me it's just a woman with an ugly ass moustache. I've seen worse in the wasteland.

We are very far away from any kind of AI that could realistically fully imitate human behaviour. A language prediction model is not really an artificial intelligence.

>Yet here you are, debating using abstract concepts
Well, it's kinda the point isn't it ? Since it's not something either of us can verify, we debate about it. All we have on the matter is our opinion.

>point being stating that you believe in something is not a justification
Justification for what exactly ? For my worldview ? My experience, what I learned, what I deducted. For the rest, it's not really possible to justify my upbringing or how my brain is wired, I had no hand in it.

>how can you have solid proof and argument without logic?
That is what logic is for, I merely wanted to point out that it can be flawed and misused. Logic is merely a tool, and part of the struggle to prove anything is to make sure the reasonning is solid, by rooting out biases and errors in reasonning. You can't compare it to ethics, logic has direct practical applications, ethics do not.

>i want to see how your worldview accounts for it
I'm running out of ways to explain to you where my worldview comes from and what it entails, because I've done it several times over now. If I understand you right, you want to know what justifies my notion or right and wrong, and I told you it comes from my upbringing, culture and experience. What else do you wish to know ?

>I am just saying that those other cultures are simply wrong.
On what criterias ? What makes you think you have the ultimate notion of right and wrong ? Because you believe you do ? It's just not enough. Let me take a more ambiguous exemple : one culture believes all dogmas are toxic to society and that it enslaves the mind. The other believe the most important thing in life is to propagate their religion to save the soul of everyone, and that this life is not as important as the one you have after you die.

Who is to say who is objectively right or wrong ? What are the universal criterias ? Who decided them ? None of the belief of the two culture can be objectively proven, so it comes down to belief and the subjective criterias on what is good for society or not.

Honestly no. I love arguing, and it's a good cognitive exercise because it forces you to organize your thoughts. Also, I like writing in english.

>This is a debate on the meaning of truth
And this was my answer. The point is that the truth is a fleeting thing until you can verify it. The problem with abstract concepts, is that they are a bit hard to verify. You have no means to check if what you hold as true is actually true, you just believe it is.

>I do not care, i asked for a justification not a biological account
You fail to understand than one question begs the other. Biology shapes culture, culture shapes your mind.

>Begging the question
What answer do you want ? Something that fits in one word, preferably with a -ism at the end ? Not everyone has a textbook line of behaviour and thoughts. I explained to you that my worldview was shaped by my upbringing, my experience and my environment, just as was yours, and anyone else's.

>Yes because you have no way to prove your logic is true
That is tricky, isn't it ? There is indeed little way to prove that anyone's logic is true, except with very solid proof and argument. That's the point of scientific research, and that makes the world a bit uncertain, but that's life. I obviously failed to make the argument of mine to you, but that's alright. You live and learn.

>Thats not true and even if it was you have yet to prove why those are wrong
I don't have to prove something we both know is right. What you want to know is how and why I come to the conclusion that it's wrong, and here it is. When you have a conversation with someone, you implicitly expect them to be honest. It's just good manners where I come from. I assume you are either from north america or somewhere in europe, so it's fair to say that you probably have that implicit expectation in your culture as well, although I assume the rest of the world generally goes by that rule as well. It is that common expectation that makes arguing with sophism and fallacies generally frowned upon. I would say that it's wrong, but I'm beginning to think we don't attach the same meaning to that word.

When I say that ethics are arbitrary (never said logic was, Mr. Assumption) that doesn't mean that they always are at any given point for everyone. Ethics are shaped by culture which is a long and lasting process. And given enough time and distance, two groups will develop a different culture and a different ethics, and end up with very different ideas on what separates good and evil. What follows generally is conflict, which you can find in numerous example throughout history.