And dismissing their way of perceiving the world is a choice which we make, not an objective mandate or imperative. We do it because the benefits to us ("normal people") seem to outweight the loses.

[...] at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed

And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we've chosen.

[...] nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself [...]

Which is a judgement call you've externalized, again not an objective reality. You have chosen to believe that meaning is important, that self-destruction is bad. There's nothing in the universe that inherently holds this as being true. Whether one person or one billion people choose to believe something as true has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless

You needn't argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn't a substance present in reality - it's a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.

[–] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 months ago

And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.

Sure, that is my argument, that we choose to make social progress based on our nature and scientific understanding. I never claimed some 100% objective morality, I'm arguing that even though that does not exist, we can make progress. Basically I'm arguing against postmodernism / materialism.

For example: If we can scientifically / objectively show that some people are born in the wrong body and it's not some mental illness, and this causes suffering that we can alleviate, then moral arguments against this become invalid. Or like the gif says "can it".

I'm not arguing that some objective ground truth exists but that the majority of healthy human beings have certain values IF they are not tainted that if reinforced gravitate towards some sort of social progress.

You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.

Does mathematics exist? Is money real? Is love real?

If nobody is left to think about them, they do not exist. If nobody is left to think about an argument, it becomes meaningless or "nonsense".