There is no relevant, substantive information or argument in your statement. I have noted that you have a tendency, when someone doesn't buy your argument, to turn to statements about that person's personal characteristics.

Or as that great philosopher Pee Wee Herman so aptly stated - I know you are, but what am I? — T Clark

Interesting.

It would be like starting a thread "Is Agustino Gay?" — Agustino

Must... resist... the urge...

Must... resist... the urge... — Sapientia

>:)

No, they're clearly not the same thing, and analogous (this is pretty much just common sense, isn't it?), and you acknowledge this yourself in the same post you are suggesting that they're analogous in. I don't really want to just try to explain everything I say, so if people are just going to respond to me to be confrontational, or for whatever reason, and don't really show any grasp of it, I don't feel compelled to respond. — Wosret

Your reply didn't address anything i said but just refuted it and said it is against common sense. Sorry Worset, not very good argumentation here mate.

I was expecting you to address how morals are not the same as knowledge in the way we come to understand and engage with it and how they are not the same in that respect of how we observe the same pattern in our response to the physical world and knowledge in the same way as morals. Also how by using the verb "doing", as in, "Are we not doing the same with our morals?", it means to say... THE PROCESS by which we gain knowledge is the same as THE PROCESS by which we understand morality and does not mean to refer to an objective morality which you mistakenly thought.