First you presented carne asada as the subject, beef as the predicate. Now you present beef as the subject and carne asada as the object, and treat it with equitable argumentative value.

It doesn’t have that. — Mww

Perhaps...

All I was getting at was that carne asada consists - in part - of beef, just as morality consists - in part - of belief.

Personally I try to avoid analogies. They always fail.

Oh god, please don't spurt out disjointed comments directed at no one in particular about "thought/belief". Have you no filter?

You know, I think that one of the best things I did when I was a moderator was that one time when I went through a number of your posts and got rid of all the dreadful "this/that", "and/or", "thought/belief", to prove a point and hopefully teach you a lesson. It's a shame you didn't learn from it, but I think it proved a point.

Morality is subjective, the consequence of morality, which is not in itself morality, is objective.

Dichotomy both absolutely necessary, and philosophically preserved.

It does not follow from the fact that you cannot recognize the relevance that there is none...

Morality is subjective, the consequence of morality, which is not in itself morality, is objective.

Dichotomy both absolutely necessary, and philosophically preserved. — Mww

Define both objective and subjective...

Ok, if you say so.

To me, it looks like the goalposts are now clear out in the parking lot.

You’re engaged in a philosophical dialectic. If you don’t understand the terms of common use within the context of that dialectic, you shouldn’t be here.

When were the goalposts established?

I'm looking forward to ignoring S, and seeing what you've got to say about morality...

I've offered quite a bit of my own position earlier and the grounds for it. I'm now looking to place yours under the same scrutiny that my own came through...

Set the posts.

Define morality while your at it.

You’re engaged in a philosophical dialectic. If you don’t understand the terms of common use within the context of that dialectic, you shouldn’t be here. — Mww

Fer Pete's sake...

Define your terms. Different folk use different definitions. I want to avoid all the problems arising from that.

It does not follow from the fact that you cannot recognize the relevance that there is none... — creativesoul

Ah, so you can fathom logic on at least a basic level. You should seek to develop this skill.

To me, it looks like the goalposts are now clear out in the parking lot. — Mww

:grin:

I've offered quite a bit of my own position earlier and the grounds for it. — creativesoul

Ah, like your contradictory position on what a fact is?

I’m not going to do that. I trust you are smart enough, and I know I am, to conform to established meanings in terminology so oft-used.

That being said, I’m pretty sure our interpretations of “moral” is way too far apart to warrant a sophisticated dialogue. Not to mention, I might be even more of a subjective relativist than S (sorry, S), so there wouldn’t be much new going on anyway.

Gratuitous assertions won't do...

Facts are what has happened. There's nothing contradictory about that.

Yeah well, I'm assuming that you're capable of more than making derogatory statements about an interlocutor. I certainly am.

I cannot understand what you're claiming without knowing how you define terms...

I'm interested in hearing you out. That's the only way to start a sophisticated dialogue.

Gratuitous assertions won't do...

Facts are what has happened. There's nothing contradictory about that. — creativesoul

Indeed, gratuitous assertions won't do. That's why I provided a logical demonstration earlier.

It's a fact that I'm presently sitting here on my sofa. That's what is happening, not what has happened. And it can't be both without contradiction.

On my view being subjective is being existentially dependent upon thought/belief. Whereas being objective is not.

Agree?

That you cannot recognize the inherent untenability of that is not my problem.

It's a fact that I'm sitting presently sitting here on my sofa. That's what is happening... — S

It had already happened by the time you wrote what you did.

That you cannot recognize the inherent untenability of that is not my problem. — creativesoul

Right, I should instead throw the logic rule book out of the window and embrace your contradictory position.

Your lack of understanding does not make my position contradictory. It makes yours untenable... unknowingly.

It already happened by the time you wrote what you have. — creativesoul

The fact that I'm presently sitting here has already happened? No. That I'm presently sitting here is happening now, in the present. The present is not the past, obviously. That'd be another contradiction.

You sat prior to writing...

You're funny, and completely missing the point.

Thank you for the entertainment. Goodnight.

It doesn't matter anyway S. Facts are states of affairs. If you want a complete definition, they would be what has happened and/or what is happening. It doesn't affect anything at all concerning my position on what makes true statements so.

Petty bickering. Is that what you've been reduced to?

Prior to writing "I'm sitting here on my couch" you sat down. The statement corresponds to what happened. If you had not sat down, you could not be sitting. It's petty.

Leave off the adverb qualifying dependent. Thoughts and belief don’t “exist”; they are merely names given to participants in a strictly human mental procedure. Being subjective is dependent upon thought/belief.

End of the day.

Ronnie Pickering has a pretty petticoat, and you should have simply provided your full definition, instead of only part of it for some reason.

Wait, is this those damn wriggly goalposts, again?! Why won't they just stay still?!

I already said that S...

It's irrelevant and petty.

An elephant is pretty. Okay, then. Anyway, goodnight.