Your lack of taking any time to actually understand what people say to you before you argue back is amazing. That is exactly my point, they are not equivalent. But if there is no underlying truth in the choice then it is just a preference. I say there is some truth that murder is or is not bad. There is no truth statement beyond mere preference if vanilla is better than chocolate — Rank Amateur

It isn't "just" a preference. It isn't "mere" preference. That's back to square one again!

Obviously an emotivist like Terrapin already accepts that both are preferences, and that there is no truth to them, so you are not doing anything logically relevant by pointlessly pointing that out. Like some of the others in this discussion, you struggle with logical relevance.

That is why he replied with, "And?".

What else could there be to that pointless point, unless, as suspected, you are suggesting something fallacious beyond a fallacy of irrelevance, like a false equivalence or an appeal to emotion by using loaded language in a superficial attempt to trivialise or smear your opponent? Are emotivists guilty by association with murderers or something? What's your bloody point? It still seems like you're dancing around the truth that you don't have a relevant or valid point.

You can only have it your way if you tell me that you believe that there is no truth statement you can make about murder
— Rank Amateur

By "truth statement" I'm presuming you mean something like "murder is..." where this corresponds to reality, yes. In which case I can say "murder is unpopular", "murder is the intentional killing of another in illegal circumstances", "murder is a six letter word"...

All those are truth statements about murder. I'm really not sure what you're asking for.

You are asking me make an argument to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without using math.
— Rank Amateur — Isaac

No, what I am saying is there is a truth about murder being good or bad, right or wrong. We can disagree what the truth is, but it is important if both parties believe there is a truth. If we don't believe there actually is a truth. It is just preference. Then we can see if we think that truth is different than opinion. And if we believe there is a truth and that truth is more than opinion, we have left subjectivity.

So your view of the source of the near universal commonly held belief that murder is wrong is pure biology, It is a sneeze. — Rank Amateur

Yes. That's what I said about six or seven different ways above. Mentality period is just biology on my view. It seems so obvious to me that sometimes I forget that it wouldn't simply be understood without having to be explicit about it.

And yes, thoughts are the only things that have truth values. Propositions are thoughts.

human nature please?

ok, so there is no truth, my thought is as valid on any moral subject is as good as yours?

If we don't believe there actually is a truth. It is just preference. — Rank Amateur

I thought we'd pretty thoroughly established this. Asking whether murder is right or wrong non-subjectively is like asking whether walking is right or wrong, or whether Birmingham is right or wrong. It's just not a question that makes any sense.

Human nature please? — Rank Amateur

Only after we've sorted out your point that I was originally addressing. I want either a concession from you or proper non-evasive reply.

You need to admit that your point lacked logical relevance or explain what the supposed logical relevance was. I've connected the dots for you out in the open, but you just deny it without actually saying what your point was, except by repeating a point which lacks logical relevance.

I thought we'd pretty thoroughly established this. Asking whether murder is right or wrong non-subjectively is like asking whether walking is right or wrong, or whether Birmingham is right or wrong. It's just not a question that makes any sense. — Isaac

Ok, if you do not believe there are any truth statements we can make about the rightness or wrongness of murder, we just disagree.

Then whatever my personal judgment on the topic is, you can disagree with, but have to accept as just as morally valid as yours

human nature was first and this is your 4th dodge on the question

Human nature was first and this is your 4th dodge on the question. — Rank Amateur

No, that's your denial kicking in again. This comment of yours was from page 20:

It just turn all such judgments to preference. Murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate. — Rank Amateur

I'm still awaiting a concession or a proper explanation from you. And I'm persevering through your many attempts at evasion.

5th dodge

ok, so there is no truth, my thought is as valid on any moral subject is as good as yours? — Rank Amateur

I just said, "Thoughts are the only things that have truth values." Obviously I think there is truth, then. It's a property of some thought. (But not moral stances (at least not when we're keeping this simple, when I'm avoiding what would have to be a huge tangent on truth theory).)

Validity has to do with truth value. So no one's moral stance is valid on my view. Again this is because moral stances do not have truth values.

And no, almost no one--and definitely not me, would say that any arbitrary person's moral stances are just as good as other person's moral stances, because "just as good" is itself a value judgment that individuals make, and people--again including me--do not happen to judge all stances equally. Hence why I asked you earlier, "Equal from what perspective?"

5th dodge — Rank Amateur

My request stems back to something you said on page 20, which you still haven't properly dealt with. You are referring to something different, and which cropped up pages later. My request preceded yours and has priority. You are being unbelievably evasive, and unbelievably making it out as though I am in fact being the one who is being unbelievably evasive. Your psych makes for an interesting case study.

You sad

The commonality in our moral feelings are just a result of human nature, like many other commonalities. But human nature includes variance, so naturally there is a variance in moral feelings.

And none of that does anything at all for moral objectivism. — Rank Amateur

I said

So we all as humans, by our very nature, have some near universal moral views, but that has nothing at all to do with that being to a high degree objective.

We are getting semantic now. — Rank Amateur

And you have not commented on this yet

So we all as humans, by our very nature, have some near universal moral views, but that has nothing at all to do with that being to a high degree objective. — Rank Amateur

Not to speak for S, but I don't know what there would be to say to that. Is anyone disagreeing with it?

And you have not commented on this yet. — Rank Amateur

Because my request has priority. It relates to something that you said which precedes what it is that I said in reply to you about a tangent. You need to deal with what you said first.

Have to back to real life, but that looks like having your cake and eating it to. will get back later today

6th dodge, I will be back later take your time for number 7

6th dodge, I will be back later take your time for number 7 — Rank Amateur

You are crazy if you think that I'm dodging instead of just holding you to my request which has priority over your request. You haven't explained why your request should have priority. You are the one dodging, and I am the one holding firm, but your psych has reversed this in your mind. You have an interesting psych.

Sure, take your time. :up:

Sure, take your time. :up: — Terrapin Station

And maybe stop by your therapist. :lol:

Okay, I think I'm pretty good at strategic game playing, so let's try this. I will answer your request, even though my request has priority, but then you either have to answer my request properly and immediately, or you will face exposure as a sophist for deliberately avoiding the relevant issue which I originally raised and which you have yet to deal with properly by either admitting that your point lacked logical relevance or stating what the supposed logical relevance is.

And I am only answering your request in this single reply here, and then it is on you to answer my request, not to continue on this digression of yours. Is that understood?

Here goes:

So we all as humans, by our very nature, have some near universal moral views, but that has nothing at all to do with that being to a high degree objective.

We are getting semantic now. — Rank Amateur

Yes, and so what? (That's a rhetorical question - you shouldn't actually answer it unless you want to continue this digression and be exposed). The word "objective" obviously doesn't normally mean "near universal", and this is very easily demonstrated with examples. It wasn't the case that it was objectively true that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system, even when that was nearly universally believed.

So you can take your idiosyncratic and counterproductive semantics and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

Now you must either deal with my request properly and immediately or face exposure as a sophist. Which is it to be? Let me know when you're back from seeing your therapist.

If you decide to do the right thing, then this is what you must properly address:

So if there is no truth value in any relative moral judgment, why make them? It just turns all such judgments to preference. Murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate. — Rank Amateur

That is exactly my point, they are not equivalent. But if there is no underlying truth in the choice then it is just a preference. I say there is some truth that murder is or is not bad. There is no truth statement beyond mere preference if vanilla is better than chocolate. — Rank Amateur

It isn't "just" a preference. It isn't "mere" preference. That's back to square one again!

Obviously an emotivist like Terrapin already accepts that both are preferences, and that there is no truth to them, so you are not doing anything logically relevant by pointlessly pointing that out. Like some of the others in this discussion, you struggle with logical relevance.

That is why he replied with, "And?".

What else could there be to that pointless point, unless, as suspected, you are suggesting something fallacious beyond a fallacy of irrelevance, like a false equivalence or an appeal to emotion by using loaded language in a superficial attempt to trivialise or smear your opponent? Are emotivists guilty by association with murderers or something? What's your bloody point? It still seems like you're dancing around the truth that you don't have a relevant or valid point. — S

I think that you, Tim, and Vagabond Spectre have been suggesting ad hominems throughout this discussion, but sometimes in a subtle way so that it has a better chance of going undetected. Some of the key fallacious suggestions from you three have been that us moral relativists are trivialising important matters, condoning things like murder or female genital mutilation, treating different moral judgements as not different but equal, being destructive, and thinking like an adolescent. Therefore, we're wrong, even though these suggestions are a steaming pile of bullshit and are nothing more than fallacy-laden propaganda.

Yes, and so what? (That's a rhetorical question - you shouldn't actually answer it unless you want to continue this digression and be exposed). The word "objective" obviously doesn't normally mean "near universal", and this is very easily demonstrated with examples. It wasn't the case that it was objectively true that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system, even when that was nearly universally believed. — S

Interesting to counter a claim of semantics by making yet another semantic argument. None of that addressed the concept addressed and you know it.

Maybe instead of making up rules for this forum, you should find a debate site, you are very good at it. Or if that falls through Trump may need another press secretary soon, he can use someone who never gives an inch and has no interest in answering questions, is always right, and has an indifferent attitude about the nature of truth.

Not to speak for S, but I don't know what there would be to say to that. Is anyone disagreeing with it? — Terrapin Station

That was my answer to s, that he has yet to answer

Interesting to counter a claim of semantics by making yet another semantic argument. None of that addressed the concept addressed and you know it.

Maybe instead of making up rules for this forum, you should find a debate site, you are very good at it. Or if that falls through Trump may need another press secretary soon, he can use someone who never gives an inch and has no interest in answering questions, is always right, and has an indifferent attitude about the nature of truth. — Rank Amateur

You are extremely predictable. Do you know that? You have chosen to respond with denialism and evasion. Who would've guessed? Well, at least you have now been well and truly exposed.

Not to speak for S, but I don't know what there would be to say to that. Is anyone disagreeing with it?
— Terrapin Station

That was my answer to s, that he has yet to answer. — Rank Amateur

I think I speak for both myself and Terrapin when I say that we object to your lack of explicit acknowledgement that you made a point which lacks logical relevance. You made a point which preaches to the choir, and does nothing else, except suggest a fallacious false equivalence, whether that was truly your intention or otherwise. Making that equivalence is either careless or deceptive. Either way, you still fucked up, and you still refuse to admit it.

His "And?" never got a proper response. I think that it is pretty clear at this stage that there never was a follow up, or that it is invalid. But you won't admit it. You just want to move on and talk about something else.

I just said, "Thoughts are the only things that have truth values." Obviously I think there is truth, then. It's a property of some thought. (But not moral stances (at least not when we're keeping this simple, when I'm avoiding what would have to be a huge tangent on truth theory).) — Terrapin Station

Just to make sure I understand correctly. This means some thoughts have truth value, but thoughts about moral stances do not have truth value. If I have that right, than what makes any thoughts about a moral stance any more than a preference by the thinker of one over another stance

Validity has to do with truth value. So no one's moral stance is valid on my view. Again this is because moral stances do not have truth values. — Terrapin Station

I again have no issue if one wants to have the view that morality is largely subjective, as long as they acknowledge this entails allowing the different moral views of others without any value judgments. You can have subjective but then all you can have is different not better not worse.

And no, almost no one--and definitely not me, would say that any arbitrary person's moral stances are just as good as other person's moral stances, because "just as good" is itself a value judgment that individuals make, and people--again including me--do not happen to judge all stances equally. Hence why I asked you earlier, "Equal from what perspective?" — Terrapin Station

I disagree that you can hold to individual moral judgments to be largely subjective, and impose a qualitative difference one to the other. They can only be different.

You are extremely predictable. Do you know that? You have chosen to respond with denialism and evasion. Who would've guessed? Well, at least you have now been well and truly exposed. — S

Forgot the part where no matter what the reality is, you, like trump will always declare victory.

— Rank Amateur

I think I speak for both myself and Terrapin when I say that we object to your lack of explicit acknowledgement that you made a point which lacks logical relevance. You made a point which preaches to the choir, and does nothing else, except suggest a fallacious false equivalence, whether that was truly your intention or otherwise. Making that equivalence is either careless or deceptive. — S

And you have yet to actually make a coherent point in opposition.

And you have yet to actually make a coherent point in opposition. — Rank Amateur

My priority has for some time now been getting you to be honest in this debate. If you made a fuck up, be honest and own up to it. Just say, "You're right, I made a point which lacks relevance. I was preaching to the choir", or just say, "You're right, what I was suggesting was false or misleading". I shouldn't have to press you so damn hard. Your precious ego shouldn't require so much protection. Is your psych really so fragile? My goodness.