Hey guys, I have a few criticisms of moral relativism that I don't think have been covered yet.

Are you ready for this? Drumroll please.

Moral relativism treats every moral judgement as equal. If you're a moral relativist, and someone attempts to murder you, you just have to say, "Okie dokie! Go ahead and murder me!".

Also, you're basically condoning the holocaust. Why would you do that? You vile bastard.

:rofl:

Half the arguments in this thread could be summed up as "if we presume moral universals, then morality must be universal". — Isaac

Yes!!! That's their argument exposed in true form! Yet there's over fifty pages of text! Unbelievable.

Yes, I see you've already covered this. I particularly liked your "I am not subservient to any supposed universal moral laws". Its hard to keep track of all everyone's said as I think everyone has said everything at least ten times by now.

Still... Once more unto the breach... — Isaac

Haha, I remember about thirty pages ago predicting that the same problems would just reoccur over another twenty pages.

Lo and behold! :lol:

Struggling to see what any of this has to do with morality... — Isaac

He's just running off on a pet tangent like he usually does. This time it began by picking up on my thought experiment directed against Janus's weak position, where I contrasted individual morality with herd-morality regarding racism. I accept that it can work both ways: that the individual can be wrong or that the herd can be wrong, but Janus seemed to be suggesting that the herd is right by default and individual morality doesn't matter, which is easily refuted by multiple examples, racism being just one of them.

I see what you're saying, but think you're fixing something which isn't broken. I don't think there is any evidence at all that people need guidance rationally through such a vague mechanism. Ask a five year old if they think it's OK to kill another person, or steal. They've already picked up that it isn't and they're hardly masters of rational thought. Our biology is far more powerful than our rationality and is, by weight of overwhelming evidence, very obviously the thing in charge. Luckily, for our rapidly changing environment, we come built in with a mechanism to adapt, we copy others. We behave the way we see others behave. We induct rules from those observations in the same way we learn the rules of language. So we don't need complex deontology. Basic functional society is enough and that requires that we get the social environment right, not moralise. It's like trying to talk a cog into playing the right role in a machine rather than just putting it in the right place for it to do so. — Isaac

Yes! I agree. The gist of that criticism of the categorical imperative is what I was getting at in my criticism of it in the last paragraph here, though we come at it from slightly different angles. You're good at explaining things. You have a way with words. Here's what I said of it earlier:

Bringing up hypothetical imperatives seems to miss the point of my criticism. Kant might well have had them in his sights, but so what? They make way more sense, and are way more relatable than his categorical imperative. I am criticising his categorical imperative. I am asserting that he largely failed, because the categorical imperative is largely alien and useless and ineffectual. I know enough about logic to recognise a logical conditional when I see one, and that is how it is commonly argued. I'm just skipping ahead to that key bit. One can ask, "Why should I act only according to that maxim whereby I can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law?". And that's when the conditional kicks in. "Well, if you were to...". But I don't. And my morality is just fine, thanks. I know that intuitively. The categorical imperative is redundant and artificial. I am not subservient to any supposed universal moral laws. That is not my measure of right and wrong. My own conscience is sufficient for the job. How can that objection be overcome? I don't think that it can. That's what I meant when I said that it has no force over myself and others. It cannot override my moral foundation in moral feelings. It is just a curious little thought experiment, but it isn't at all practical or realistic. What's practical and realistic is simply appealing to your conscience without any need for Kant's abstract and rationalist way of thinking.

First of all, you've made a very important change to what I actually said which makes all the difference. I said "I shall murder whomever I please" and you re-quoted it as "you can yourself murder as you desire".

The use of the word 'can' begs the question because it presumes a priori that there is a universal moral code that one might consult to see if I 'can' murder someone, otherwise what would the opposite mean? So the first problem is that the proposition you're asking me to counter makes no sense unless I already presume moral objectivism (we've been here before). I mean, what else would "I can murder" mean without presuming there is a universal moral law? - I'm physically capable of murder? - Well, that definitely could be the case for some and not others. — Isaac

Indeed, we have. How many times now? A hundred? A thousand? I lost count a long time ago. We have over fifty pages of this now. Pretty crazy.

Fine, but not only a rational determination, the subjective feeling that some law exists (I wouldn't put it that way myself, but I'm trying to use your terminology), must come first, and it is this which makes morality relative. — Isaac

Yes, and again, this relates to Hume. It was he who made these brilliant points revealing the fundamental nature of morality. The subjective feeling comes first, and is primary, and then the rational determination follows suit. Or, as Hume famously put it, reason is the slave of the passions.

Kant is mostly known in ethics for introducing a novel way of going about morality, how to determine right and wrong, which pales in comparison to what Hume did in this branch of philosophy, in my opinion.

The idiom refers to the wrong part of a duality being in charge (the dog should be the one wagging it's tail, not the other way round). What I'm saying here is that from my position people tend to justify, post hoc, that which they desire to do anyway. The complexity and flexibility of deontology in the regard you mention is exactly how this happens. I think it's a mistake to hide behind a woven rationalisation. — Isaac

Yes!

But there's nothing irrational about saying I don't want anyone to murder me, but I shall murder whomever I please. — Isaac

Yes, and "tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger".

I’m saying feelings are not sufficient for negating a norm, such that one is justified in claiming to be its opposite, even while feeling a dissatisfaction with it.

Well they are in my case. If you were to take me to a time and place where racism was very much the norm, then I assure you I would stand by my feelings against it. I'm not that fickle or sheeplike.

How can one overcome racism in the example provided s/he has no external source aside from the racist imbedded language use s/he learns? — creativesoul

What are you even doing with the thought experiment I introduced? Must you take everything on one of your peculiar tangents? The point I was making was simple enough and seems uncontroversial. People are only resisting it because they don't want to concede.

Allow me to get you back on track:

There's nothing which makes it impossible for one to deviate from the herd-morality prevalent in a society, and to deviate in a good way. The adherents of herd-morality commit the fallacy of only considering scenarios where the herd-morality conforms with their own morality, and so they naturally judge deviation as bad. But when they're confronted with a scenario where the herd-morality doesn't conform with their own morality, as with the racism example, they don't know how to reasonably justify their stance, which explains the irrational dismissiveness I have received. Special pleading and irrational denial is no reasonable justification.

These denialists don't even realise that they're tacitly appealing to their own individual sense of morality here, which is evidently primary.

And again, to be clear, I have not once suggested any sort of absolute isolation or immunity of any external influential factors. Nonconformity is very much possible, and very much not attributable to the herd. Though it can be somewhat rare for an individual to stand out from the herd, to deviate from a dominant culture, it can and does happen, and that is because we are individual moral agents and not Borg.

This is the nail in the coffin. The responses, if there are any, will probably just be more words on a screen which achieve nothing. And one thing is certain, ramblings about "thought/belief" and "existential dependency" and "prior to language acquisition" won't do anything except provide those of us in the know with entertainment. It is even more entertaining when someone actually takes it seriously and tries to make sense out of nonsense. (Perhaps by "all mimsy were the borogoves", he meant...). So by all means, please continue down this route, and I'll grab some more popcorn.

I remember when @Mww was still sensible enough to side with me over @creativesoul. Now those two are all chummy and he is bitterly set against me, even though I talk way more sense.

I'd say that any moral stance, n, is rational only in relation to some other, effectively foundational stance or desire, goal, etc., m, where n is either a consequence of or prerequisite for m. — Terrapin Station

That's what certain rationalist philosophers and their fanboys either miss or try in vain to overcome. This was Hume's great contribution to moral philosophy. From what I know of Kantian philosophy, and from what I've seen presented here, nothing in the aforementioned even comes close to a refutation of this point. It is just words on a screen which achieve nothing. Those continually submitting this text seem to be under the illusion that they've actually achieved something of substance. It is quite absurdly humorous.

Is there good reason to suppose that there is a Creator? I can't think of one, other than comfort. I do not find questionable interpretations of things we do not understand, such as the origins of the universe, the quantum world, and consciousness, persuasive. — Fooloso4

Me either. And what I strongly object to is:

"I go by blind faith, which is obviously in stark contrast to thinking reasonably, but I still want to associate my blind faith with reason and fact, and even though I take a very unphilosophical approach to this, I still want to pretend that I'm being philosophical about it".

When there is no definite information, we speculate. — Pattern-chaser

There's a massive difference between medieval-style speculation and modern-style speculation. A heck of a lot of people still think about certain things like someone from medieval times, but the number of people who think like that has been declining since the Enlightenment. But credit where credit is due. Some of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Aristotle, thought in the latter way, but then, sadly, Christianity and the Dark Ages came along.

and we are back to twitter.

what you really want to do is just argue, it in some way feeds your ego, or feeds some need that validates you. From the outside it appears to me your self worth is based on some view that you are an intellectual and these banters back and forth are your validation.

You are in no way really interested in an exchange of ideas - you just want to fight. — Rank Amateur

You are insane. I gave you a very reasonable response, which attempted to pursue a philosophical enquiry. It contained no insults or personal attacks or rhetoric or pettiness. It wasn't an egotistical challenge or looking for a fight or anything like that. These are just ad hominem characterisations from you, not reasonable philosophy. You decided against the reasonable philosophical approach when presented to you.

Here it is: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/269900

it — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

is — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

not — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

but — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

you — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

Go troll someone else.

My goodness. Absolutely ridiculous.

Let's not go round and round all day, like twitter. Let's do philosophy. — Rank Amateur

That's what I've been aiming at all along, but you seem unwilling.

We make an argument to influence others that their view is in error, or to convince them that our view is correct/better/ more reasonable.

If one has no interest in either of these objectives - he has no need to argue.

I have no interest in changing your mind, I have no need to argue anything to you.

If you wish to change mine, make a complete and coherent argument with clear propositions and conclusions and I will answer them as honestly as I can. — Rank Amateur

My goodness. Do you want to do philosophy or not? Because the above is just excuse and red herring. If you want to do philosophy, please go back to my post and properly engage my philosophical enquiry. You avoided all of my questions.

My belief is, as always, that my theism is a matter of faith, and that faith is not inconsistent with fact or reason. — Rank Amateur

This is the bit we argue over, as you well know. Faith is inconsistent with reason. They are two fundamentally different things, and they lead to fundamentally different places for the two of us. Reason leads me to reject what you have faith in.

And you aren't justified in claiming that it's not inconsistent with fact, because you don't know what the factual situation is regarding the existence of God, and if you don't know that, then how can you say whether it is or isn't inconsistent with fact? In a previous lengthy discussion on this, you eventually withdrew that claim for a differently worded claim where you qualified that you only meant something like scientific or empirical fact, but that lengthy discussion apparently achieved nothing of lasting value, as you quickly revert back as though we never even had that lengthy discussion.

I have no need to support it, I am not trying to change your POV. I have no issue at all with what you believe. I can't prove to you that God is, is a fact. So I don't try. I can't prove to you that atheism is not reasonable, so I don't. Your beliefs do not bother me, and I have never challenged you on them.

It seems rather apparent that mine bothers you, you are the one making the repeated claim that my faith based theism is in error. It is you making the claim - and you who should make the argument to support it. — Rank Amateur

See, most of that doesn't actually address the points I make. It's not about challenging my stance, it is about supporting yours, and you can do so in relation to my stance, which is why I bring up my stance. I am not requesting "proof". I don't use that term because it is ambiguous and might lead to misunderstanding. I'm requesting whatever support you judge to be sufficient, and then once that's out in the open, I can assess it. But I can't assess it if you keep it to yourself, can I? Philosophy is about making these assessments, and this is a philosophy forum for that purpose. Why don't you want to do philosophy?

Do you accept that your faith based theism is in error if you want to distinguish your faith based theism epistemologically from faith based teapotism? The equivalence is in terms of the lack of evidence, not in any other sense you can come up with, like what we generally know about teapots or what attributes they have. Do you think that there's more evidence for God than a space teapot? Do you think that there's sufficient evidence for God, but not for a space teapot? What do you think? Philosophy is about investigating and testing these things. Sometimes yourself and others give me the impression that you're chastising me for being philosophical, on a philosophy forum of all places.

None of that is anything at all like all the noseeum arguments you try to make. — Rank Amateur

And what arguments would those be? You tend not to address my arguments, but different ones. You tend to take aim at easier targets.

And I stand by my point that - lack of evidence only proves a lack of evidence. — Rank Amateur

Standing by it is not the same as justifying it. What's your counter to the claim that a sufficient lack of evidence in support of a proposition constitutes reasonable grounds for not believing it?

Your one liners will go a lot further here than you suppose. — Frank Apisa

He'll have stiff competition. And no, I'm not referring to Banno. :strong: :grin:

The rules are there for a reason, as you well know. I don't see why I should waste too much of my time explaining that to someone who seems so adamant against the very idea of this, yet nevertheless continues to abide by such unwritten rules in his goings about here. Like I said earlier, it just seems to amount to attention seeking on your end. I don't need to argue against a performative contradiction. It's self-defeating.

I get that you want to drag me along on this merry-go-round, Groundhog Day experience, but I would rather not go through that.

You realise you have just presented two conditionals and a set relation argument. Two arguments in logic.

Did you first prove that logic was qualified to speak to the issue at hand? Because if you did, I missed it. — Isaac

Exactamundo.

Agree - science is very much in the business of looking for stuff that does not exist, and very much not in the business of denying anything with out evidence. — Rank Amateur

Ironically, unless you can name someone here who is denying anything simply on the basis that there's no evidence, rather than on the basis that this absence of evidence is evidence of absence, than that is itself evidence of the absence of any relevant position to attack, which is evidence that you're attacking a straw man.

Science does indeed make claims of the latter type. A pristine bedroom with no evidence of mud, fur, paw prints, and disorder, is scientific evidence of the absence of a filthy and excited dog having been in there.

You give the impression that you're uninformed about things like "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and the burden of proof. Being informed and obliging of how these things work is vital in debates like this. You should know the rules and play by them.

As for my view on this, whether the absence of evidence is or isn't evidence of absence, it is nevertheless the case that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably justify the conclusion of theism or strong atheism.

Or without any evidence to refute them other than a different world view, we could just believe otherwise honest and unmotivated to misinform people that they believe what they believe to be true. — Rank Amateur

This is basically another straw man. I do believe otherwise, and I do believe that they believe what they believe to be true. That's true of every atheist here, I think. But my absence of belief is not on equal footing with their belief, because I'm being reasonable and they're not. They're going by a blind leap of faith, and that's obviously not being reasonable. One can get to space teapots and the like through blind leaps of faith. Blind leaps of faith open the epistemological floodgates and mean you lose epistemological credibility. It screams, "I care less about philosophy, and I care more about being irrational!".

Call it whatever you like, directly or indirectly, but you can bet your ass Tim wasn’t talking about me when he said it. — Mww

Of course, because he's biased in your favour. When he said the street fight comment, he most likely excluded himself and people like you. Even though you lot are as guilty as the rest.

Mitigating circumstances don't remove responsibility, they only make transgressions easier to understand, forgive, or not care about. Something seen as a small transgression is more likely to be forgiven. — fdrake

They don't remove responsibility completely. I was agreeing with you and adding to or qualifying what you said. Responsibility is a thing of degree, it's not black and white.

We are still responsible for the stupid shit we do while drunk or high. — fdrake

Yes, but it's not that simple. Being so drunk or high that you're not exactly you is a mitigating circumstance. This actually happened to me as recently as last Friday. I was so drunk that I wasn't myself to extent that I caused a big commotion which resulted in shouting and arguments and the police being called. Some of the people involved later tried to get revenge. I caught them and confronted them, and I apologised for my behaviour the other night, but emphasised that I was drunk out of my face, whereas they are both stone cold sober, and I could instantly see the shame on their faces when I said that.

If, however, you're saying that it is a fact that this additional thing exists and I must prove it doesn't in order to sustain my position, then I'd take issue with that. — Isaac

This is a general problem with him which spills over into other discussions. He either doesn't get how the burden of proof works or he deliberately disregards it. He only cares about trying to deflect attention away from his weaknesses and trying to manipulate his interlocutor into presenting justification after justification after justification, hoping to catch him out on something.

Is that an honourable way to engage in philosophical discussion?

Yeah, it's frustrating to have to keep correcting such simple things against straw men. — Terrapin Station

And why is it only people like us who are doing so? That is telling. The people on the other side of the debate either do not detect these problems or keep silent about them. With bad arguments like that, if I was on the other side of this debate, I would actively set out to dissociate myself with them. But instead, we see a lot of back patting. "Well said!", "Good point, Tim!", "Let's jerk off to Kant together, Tim!".

Morality is subjective. But morality isn't the entirety of the world. There are plenty of objective things. Morality just ain't one of them. — Terrapin Station

Yes, for Christ's sake, this really shouldn't have to be clarified, let alone over and over again. I am also a moral subjectivist, but would anyone here in their right mind accuse me of idealism? Just look at my recent discussions. Look at the sheer number of criticisms I have made of it.

It beggars belief that anyone could struggle so much with such an elementary distinction.

Mere possibility isn't sufficient to believe anything, because the contradictory is usually possible, too. — Terrapin Station

Indeed, and that's what his argument boils down to. It is easily refuted. It isn't able to rule out competing explanations. Maybe there's an outside source. Maybe there isn't. It isn't difficult to imagine a possible world with either scenario. You're right to press him on how near universal judgement is evidence of what he asserts (without supporting argument) that it is evidence of, but if you expect a proper response, you'll probably end up disappointed. He is intellectually dishonest and will refuse his burden of proof, yet he also won't concede. Instead, he'll respond with red herring after red herring, until you get distracted or grow sick and tired.

Except, wait a minute. Does an outside source even make any sense in the context of morality? Maybe it's not even possible, because it's a category error.

And as on many many many other things - lack of evidence, is just lack of evidence. And even that is in dispute. And at the core of point all along. Near universal moral judgments on some issues is evidence that the source of some moral judgments could have a source outside individual mental phenomena. — Rank Amateur

That's a pretty obvious double standard.

Importantly, (and please acknowledge this point) there is no functionality to an objective morality, even if it exists; We are free to ignore it, should we feel differently.

Some people would dictate that the bible objectively states that homosexuality is wrong. Even if they could (they can't) objectively demonstrate this, it doesn't benefit anyone; We can ignore it, save for the punishment of hellfire, should they be able to prove it (they can't). — Edward

It's a relief to see someone who gets it, amongst others who simply don't. These are very good points. I have made them myself a number of times, and in a number of different discussions.

Some people fail to see the logic of this, and are guilty of special pleading, e.g. "Yes, but with murder it's different!".

It is a characteristically religious mindset, actually. Not like the open-mindedness of Hinduism, which is more accepting of other religions, but like the mindset of "My religion is the One True Religion, and only My Religion has authority over what's right and wrong!".

"If you don't accept my religion, then you're a heathen!"

"If you don't accept my morality, then you're a psychopath!"

And what are your qualifications for making that diagnosis? And why don't I recall undergoing a professional assessment conducted by you?

I do not know how you get this. The entire point is that's all that you-all will acknowledge, is a feeling. I argue that the monstrousness of these bad actors is bad in itself. You-all apparently need to personally suppose it bad, but do not acknowledge it as badness. More to the point, you-all have stated that inasmuch as (presumably) the bad actors did not think their actions were bad, then it's nonsense to say they were bad.

Question: do you suppose reason and its products to be universalizable? 2+2=4 is an expression of a certain kind of reason. Is it true, or is it true-for-you but not true, or maybe not true at all, but you just go with it? Which, please? — tim wood

There's nothing about your post which hasn't already been addressed. What is the point of this crazy merry-go-round? Serious question.

But to be honest, the biggest reason I keep reading is that some of the nonsense people write is hilarious... — Isaac

True dat. :lol:

First of all, although I am far from an expert, I do have some background knowledge here, as a matter of fact. I know that yourself and others might want to make out like I'm a know-nothing on Kant, but that simply isn't true.

Secondly, I don't think that quoting from the SEP, or worse, directly from Kant, is the best way to get his point across. I think, generally, the best way to get a point across is to be clear and to simplify and avoid jargon where possible.

What I find annoying about Kant, and this is especially true of Kant, is the amount of jargon he coined, which needs to be translated in order to be understood. I already knew about "hypothetical imperatives". I wasn't too clear on "practical reason". One online source states that he defined it as the capacity of rational agents to act according to principles (i.e. the conception of laws). And this stuff about "rational agency" and "autonomous will" and the like is similarly obscure unless you are already fluent in Kantanese, which I'm not. I'm not fluent in Hegelese or Heideggerese either, although Kant isn't half as bad as those two. And it annoys me that that's even a problem in the first place, because I doubt the supposed necessity of it.

But anyway, yes, of course I disagree with Kant's categorical imperative. That much is surely obvious. Though, evidently, I haven't just dismissed it as a joke, in spite of doing so initially, and justifiably in response to your bare assertion which it was replying to, in accordance with Hitchen's razor. I've submitted criticism, and I stand by that criticism.

Bringing up hypothetical imperatives seems to miss the point of my criticism. Kant might well have had them in his sights, but so what? They make way more sense, and are way more relatable than his categorical imperative. I am criticising his categorical imperative. I am asserting that he largely failed, because the categorical imperative is largely alien and useless and ineffectual. I know enough about logic to recognise a logical conditional when I see one, and that is how it is commonly argued. I'm just skipping ahead to that key bit. One can ask, "Why should I act only according to that maxim whereby I can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law?". And that's when the conditional kicks in. "Well, if you were to...". But I don't. And my morality is just fine, thanks. I know that intuitively. The categorical imperative is redundant and artificial. I am not subservient to any supposed universal moral laws. That is not my measure of right and wrong. My own conscience is sufficient for the job. How can that objection be overcome? I don't think that it can. That's what I meant when I said that it has no force over myself and others. It cannot override my moral foundation in moral feelings. It is just a curious little thought experiment, but it isn't at all practical or realistic. What's practical and realistic is simply appealing to your conscience without any need for Kant's abstract and rationalist way of thinking.

Yes, like sticking my head in the sand. The ideal solution to any problem. :roll:

After 47 pages, I think I've shown that I have the patience of a saint, but even saints have their limits. Members like Isaac and Terrapin Station clearly know what they're talking about and are more than capable of setting you straight, but you should try much harder if you genuinely want to gain an understanding of moral relativism. As for me, I've grown sick and tired, as it has been dealt with ad nauseam.

And as for Kant and his categorical imperative, you haven't said anything at all which would give me reason to withdraw or rethink my criticism. Merely saying that I don't understand him and suchlike is not a valid response, and don't even think about giving me a "You too!" style response, because I have put great effort into explaining moral relativism to the likes of you and Rank Amateur, even though it has been a thankless task, yet you've shown very little improvement, if any. We're still having to correct the same basic misunderstandings 47 pages later.

Yes, I am choosing to read your posts, and I chose to read your post which contained that shameful opinion of yours which wasn't worth expressing to one such as me, on a philosophy forum such as this. It was a reply to me, which meant that I got a little notification, which I was curious about and hopeful to some extent - naively hopeful, perhaps. But you've let me down, and Clarky Jim has let me down. And it is a real damn pity when I find myself here, in a discussion in the philosophy section of a philosophy forum, faced with "I don't care about the explanation!" on the one hand, and "I know you are, but what am I!" on the other.

Just forget it.

Well yes, that's actually the point, at least in part: I find the categorical imperative to be a joke, and I have my reasons. It is a joke to me, but in a wider sense also. (Believe it or not, I am quite aware that not everything is all about me). Of course, I acknowledge that others judge it to be of far greater significance. It is of greater significance to them. What I said is not merely about mere, foolish, toxic, destructive, me. Such criticisms about Kant's categorical imperative, which are also necessarily about what I think, whether that's implicit or explicit, happen to resonate with others also. Kant is only human after all, he is not God. God is dead, and Kant is human, all too human. His writings are largely a symptom of the moral prejudice of a philosopher, and that is largely true of many of those philosophers who came before him.

And yes, you don't see reason in meta-ethical moral relativism. You don't see reason in it largely because you still don't even understand it, 47 pages later, in spite of reasonable efforts. And you don't even understand that you don't even understand it. You persist in attacking your own misunderstanding, and you seemingly have no qualms in resorting to unreasonable and underhanded tactics in pursuit your narrow-minded goal to "defeat" meta-ethical moral relativism, or amoralism, or moral nihilism, or chaos, or doom, or destruction, or Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Trump, disgusting, evil, toxic monster! (They're all one and the same to you, right?).

He who hasn't the courtesy to speak to me directly is both blind and judgemental. He obviously didn't look hard enough, as the following proves:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/265816

It wasn't hard to find at all. I used the advanced search function and found it with ease in a matter of minutes. Yes, I know, he now has egg all over his face, and I can't think of anyone more deserving.

He owes me an apology, but this has gone so far that I think that I would throw it right back in his face, even if he did offer me an apology.

I'm far too principled to cave in to such petty judgements, which is what you really want from me. But I do at least consider them, because I'm philosophical like that.

Poisoning the well. You're just pissed off because I'm like a gadfly with attitude. I am "toxic" like Socrates was "toxic" to the Athenians. But Socrates wasn't as wry or caustic as me. So I guess I'm "doubly toxic".