I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[FlashDangerpants]

That's not how it works.

You do not determine how *it* or anything “works”. You cannot imperiously dismiss ideas nor values with a wave of your hand.

Your purpose here is strictly negative: to shoot down any assertion. It is easily done simply by vocalization.

The issue is really if there are principles that you recognize as real and constant — and revealable. You do not. Full stop.

You are stuck and it is your issue to resolve, not mine.

If there are universal facts about which values are true then you should be able to explain an argument to substantiate a factual claim about the factual values. There would be no escape via just not believing in values as fact if you could do that, because you would be able to show incontrovertibly that I was in error.

[Skepdick]

If there are universal facts about which values are true

Also... that's a really really cute circularity you are peddling there. Do you value true values more than you value false values or something?!?

It seems like another universal fact about values that true values are more valuable than the false values.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If there are universal facts about which values are true then you should be able to explain an argument to substantiate a factual claim about the factual values. There would be no escape via just not believing in values as fact if you could do that, because you would be able to show incontrovertibly that I was in error.

Oh I could make a case for such, but you know and I know that the terms of my decisiveness, no matter how I delivered it, would be shot down by your person. I.e. this man who does not, and cannot, accept the notion of universal values (within the categories that concern me).

So really your argument should take the positive approach by explaining why you hold those views.

Peter Holmes encapsulated it here:

There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

[FlashDangerpants]

If there are universal facts about which values are true then you should be able to explain an argument to substantiate a factual claim about the factual values. There would be no escape via just not believing in values as fact if you could do that, because you would be able to show incontrovertibly that I was in error.

Oh I could make a case for such, but you know and I know that the terms of my decisiveness, no matter how I delivered it, would be shot down by your person. I.e. this man who does not, and cannot, accept the notion of universal values (within the categories that concern me).

Why am I not going to just lose that argument? Is your argument not very good for some reason?

If I argue against the facts of the matter, I would expect to lose. This should help you to understand what facts are for.

[Skepdick]

If I argue against the facts of the matter, I would expect to lose.

How is that supposed to work against an eristic strategy, exactly?

I argue that grass is blue and that the sky is red. When do I lose? How do I lose?

If this is a game. And a game of "winning" and "losing" at that. And there are no objective moral standards of fair play what incentive is there for anyone to pursue truth over winning at any cost?

Is there intrinsic value to truth over winning arguments; or something?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why am I not going to just lose that argument? Is your argument not very good for some reason?

If I argue against the facts of the matter, I would expect to lose. This should help you to understand what facts are for.

I am not engaged in *argument* with you. So I have not agreed to any of the terms of your debate.

If I am correct, you hold to this (as expressed by Peter Holmes in the thread you linked me to):

There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

That’s an •unassailable statement• is it not? The real and true truth of the matter is expressed there, isn’t it?

What in Heaven’s name do you wish to “argue about”?

[FlashDangerpants]

Why am I not going to just lose that argument? Is your argument not very good for some reason?

If I argue against the facts of the matter, I would expect to lose. This should help you to understand what facts are for.

I am not engaged in *argument* with you. So I have not agreed to any of the terms of your debate.

If I am correct, you hold to this (as expressed by Peter Holmes in the thread you linked me to):

There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

That’s an •unassailable statement• is it not? The real and true truth of the matter is expressed there, isn’t it?

What in Heaven’s name do you wish to “argue about”?

Wow, you seemed to have such confidence in your own abailites before, but now you are so weak, what happened to you? If I argue that the capital of Greece is Nairobi, you would best me using facts about the geography of Greece, wouldn't you? You wouldn't say that it was impossible for you to demonstrate my error unless I agreed to believe you in advance of you showing me would you? I would lose that debate because the facts would show I was in error wouldn't they?

Now scroll up the page a little, see the bit where you wrote "Oh I could make a case for such", and explain to me why that thing there suddenly needs such a circular argument if you have facts on your side.

I don't know why you are taking Pete's words and putting them into my mouth when you kick up such a pathetic fuss about the use of words like conservative to describe your own positions, it seems severely hypocritical tbh. I am a moral-antirealist and I can make a very effective case for it base on my advanced philosophical studies and know how. If you can make a better case, I lose.

If you can't show that I am wrong about this, then some of the bolder statements you have made recently, such as the one about Harbal's lack of self-knowledge and things like ... "Let’s see what he manages to put forth. Prediction: nothing. He has zero content. Literally zero. I read many of his posts to be sure" or "Let them spit, bark, snarl and accuse — unless they can articulate a genuine, comprehensible position it is simply paper bullets …. I honestly wish they had some real ammo." are unsupportable expressions of pure hubris on your part which you ought to humbly withdraw today, and then you really should refrain from such overconfidence in future.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am a moral-antirealist and I can make a very effective case for it base on my advanced philosophical studies and know how. If you can make a better case, I lose.

Don’t get too fancy. If memory serves you did a few years of study toward a BA. You have dabbled to some degree.

As I said, your position is precisely that which I quoted. Case made or case non-made.

The terms of any argument or assertion of the realism of moral categories depends on metaphysical predicates. Your commitment — I cannot say how you came to it but you likely have a glimmer of an idea (or perhaps not?) — is one that you express through the negation of metaphysical categories. And in that domain you will certainly “win”.

My commitments are part of a level of experience that I cannot negate — but neither can I •prove•. So, doing so is a futile effort. You are not convinced. You cannot be convinced. Given that, what is the utility of a *debate* with you? By your declaration you have already won.

So when it comes to the •brass tacks• of communication on this theme, I grant you the soundness of the structure of your argument, because it is structured within limits you determine (have chosen).

Those who respond or •resonate• with the belief or understanding that (for example) morals are real, and that there are absolutes (now referring to Weaver’s ideas) do so because of an inner relationship. I am not precisely sure what that is. Yet your negating efforts; the communication of the means through which you convinced yourself, no matter how extensive or how footnoted will not convince me to accept your doctrine. When I say “you” here I mean people who reason like you — and there are many, and many here.

I suppose there are those who do mount •moral realism• arguments. Did they convince you? No. Therefore I do not think you will be moved by anything I would say.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am a moral-antirealist and I can make a very effective case for it base on my advanced philosophical studies and know how. If you can make a better case, I lose.

Don’t get too fancy. If memory serves you did a few years of study toward a BA. You have dabbled to some degree.

You are habitually boastful so perhaps you haven't noticed, but I tend very much towards self-deprecation and I don't boast a lot. But I have held my BA for several years, and I have read a lot of philosophical works since then. My primary field is modern moral philosophy and I am pretty well read from Mill to Mackie, and from Boyd to Blackburn to Berlin, I have a decent grasp of what I am on about here.

So when I tell you that I can make a very effective case for a specific line of argument within my specific domain of knowledge, based on my advanced philosophical studies in that domain... you can take that to the bank and you can quit being a cock about it.

If you happen to be friends with Christine Korsgaard and can tag her in to do the arguing for you, then I might have to eat those words. So I guess it's sort of relative to the capabilities of whoever I am in debate with, but for today's purposes, my learning is at an advanced level in comparison to my interlocutor's.

As I said, your position is precisely that which I quoted. Case made or case non-made.

It's not, but I have decided it's close enough that I won't quibble. Your case about the big families was actually exactly as I described after all, and your quibbling about that was just embarrassing.

The terms of any argument or assertion of the realism of moral categories depends on metaphysical predicates. Your commitment — I cannot say how you came to it but you likely have a glimmer of an idea (or perhaps not?) — is one that you express through the negation of metaphysical categories. And in that domain you will certainly “win”.

That would be true if I am bound only by my personal commitments, but untrue if there is an objective fact of the matter to constrain me, because then my commitment is neither here nor there when placed against actual objective fact. Therefore you must be agreeing that values are not objective to make such a case, or you must abandon that line of argument as self-refuting if you hold there is objective fact of value.

My commitments are part of a level of experience that I cannot negate — but neither can I •prove•. So, doing so is a futile effort. You are not convinced. You cannot be convinced. Given that, what is the utility of a *debate* with you? By your declaration you have already won.

So when it comes to the •brass tacks• of communication on this theme, I grant you the soundness of the structure of your argument, because it is structured within limits you determine (have chosen).

Those who respond or •resonate• with the belief or understanding that (for example) morals are real, and that there are absolutes (now referring to Weaver’s ideas) do so because of an inner relationship. I am not precisely sure what that is. Yet your negating efforts; the communication of the means through which you convinced yourself, no matter how extensive or how footnoted will not convince me to accept your doctrine. When I say “you” here I mean people who reason like you — and there are many, and many here.

I suppose there are those who do mount •moral realism• arguments. Did they convince you? No. Therefore I do not think you will be moved by anything I would say.

Here you seem to have completely abandoned the notion of facts about correct values. But you are too weak to admit it.

I think honesty is a good thing, and most people also think that. I don't use a framework of moral fact to arrive at the conclusoin that honesty is good. I don't say that honesty is valuable because it closely resembles any Platonic Form, nor do I make a judgment that society benefits from a higher utility function if there is widespread trust fostered by a culture of truth telling, and I certainly don't blame any maxim predicated on what rules a pure intellect would consent to be bound by. But I do accept the generally held belief that lying is usually bad and telling the truth is normally less bad.

With that in mind, do you think it would be better to be honest about it if you turned out to be unable to construct quite the argument you originally assumed you could? I say yes, and that is the course of I action I recommend to you on that basis.

[Alexis Jacobi]

From your very early posting:

Hi I am new too.

I did about half a BA in Philosophy once. I sort of hurt my head.

Mostly interested in ethics and political theory.

Looking at philosophy of economics next.

Just recently:

So when I tell you that I can make a very effective case for a specific line of argument within my specific domain of knowledge, based on my advanced philosophical studies in that domain... you can take that to the bank and you can quit being a cock about it.

I am glad, in the abstract, that you are pleased with yourself. Up till now I don’t have much attraction to your views and ideas — whatever they are. You bicker mostly and I do not see where you delve much into your thinking.

It’s not so much that I am •a cock• as you say but more that you are a sexual pervert and involved in ugly categories of thought & imagination. To me you are an •intellectual cockroach•.

Every approach you have taken toward me, starting with your insinuations of •being a Nazi•,were your own misplaced, inaccurate, and non-thinking imprecations. This demonstrated mental unbalance.

If you are at all curious I sense in you something malignant. So to tell me you are interested in •ethics• holds no weight with me.

Beside this, I doubt that we have much to share or genuinely communicate.

Certainly you react against some or many of my assertions (for example to downplay deviant sexual practices for example and to favor normalcy). Honestly I have no problem with your opposition.

Anything else?

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not really that interested in whether you detect some sort of perversion in me, your prudish opinions aren't persuasive.

Let's stick to the validity or otherwise of arguments presented.

The terms of any argument or assertion of the realism of moral categories depends on metaphysical predicates. Your commitment — I cannot say how you came to it but you likely have a glimmer of an idea (or perhaps not?) — is one that you express through the negation of metaphysical categories. And in that domain you will certainly “win”.

That would be true if I am bound only by my personal commitments, but untrue if there is an objective fact of the matter to constrain me, because then my commitment is neither here nor there when placed against actual objective fact. Therefore you must be agreeing that values are not objective to make such a case, or you must abandon that line of argument as self-refuting if you hold there is objective fact of value.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If it pleases you, talk about the •objective facts• you just mentioned.

[FlashDangerpants]

If it pleases you, talk about the •objective facts• you just mentioned.

You throw so many pretentious terms around like "metaphysical predicates" that I can't really tell if you have much of an idea about what makes objectivity a contentious topic or not, so it's hard for me to know how to pitch anything for you.

It should be pretty simple though. An objective information point of some sort is one which you and other people can all validate by looking at the properties of the same object or class of objects. So it is objectively true that the Sun is around 865,000 miles in diameter, and if anybopdy doubts that, they are free to measure it using whatever instruments do that.

Information that is not objective would include things that you look to your own interneal mental states to learn about or quantify. This is so because other people cannot inspect that particular object and so must look to their own feelings and beliefs etc which may yield radically different results. So it is not objectively true that honey is delicious, although it likely is objectively true that most persons report that they think honey is delicious.

So when you say that large families are a good thing for some prudential reason that you consider beneficial to society you have the start of a problem to do with whether "good" is the sort of thing that can be objective information or not. Then you make it worse for yourself by insisting that people can only really get your argument if they hold a particular set of internalised beliefs, because that implies that the way to check for validity of this information point is to look internally, not to an external object of any sort.

And of course, there is a point to objectivity, a reason why we look for it and a reason why we use it. The value of objective information is that it is not opinion, if something is objectively true, then it is true and claims contrary to it are false. So if you are in the game of saying that Harbal is mistaken to promote tolerance of homosexual lifestyles, then you need to be in a position to say that something he believes is factually erroneous, and for that you need to uncover some way to learn the objective facts of correct values.

You could only possibly attain any such outcome by radically changing your argument. I have no idea why you've mentioned Plato so many times if you are only going to argue the way you do.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I regret having suggested you speak about •objective facts• only because the notion is simple and that you could gave said all in one or two sentences.

In our world, absent human beings, there is no morality comparable to any human moral system. One could say, and I think an argument for its •objectivity• could be made, that life, biological life, is amoral. Ecological systems are not moral systems, just systems of processes. The planet in its material-biological process aspect operates in accord with the rules and necessities of that amoral system.

Everything pertaining to man’s world — ideas, concepts, values, sense of obligation, sense of duty, everything — except as it pertains to biological body function and physical needs at the elemental level, arise from what I term •metaphysical predicates•.

So to speak of any value and to evaluate is an act that occurs in a •metaphysical mind•.

From the perspective of •objective facts• it does not differ if you ejaculate in the anus of your referred-to “rent boy” or in the act of masturbation. In a world, your world, absent a metaphysical concept it is all equal, and equally meaningless.

It requires a metaphysics in order to be able to say “sexual love should be enacted exclusively in a productive man-woman relationship” and that “homosexual unions and other perverse sexual relations should be curtailed” (I also said frowned upon). I also said that •metaphysically• the symbol of semen and feces or if you wish the generative organ and the anus are incompatible. Again, it takes a metaphysical mind to *see* that. And yes it requires a mind educated within those categories of thought.

Conversely, in a world absent what I refer to as •elevated metaphysics•, and in a brutalized world where men no longer can or will *see* in such terms, all things begin not to matter. Because what matters is, overall, a metaphysical issue.

Moral systems, and metaphysical views, or the realization of them, are as I have always said •impositions• imposed by man. Absent man, one could say, they vanish.

So these ideas, these realizations, lead me to the position not that it is wise or good to destroy •metaphysical predicates• (in the sense of •basis•) but rather to rediscover, review and re-empower them. It is, I believe, an internal process — spiritual if you will.

Absent (say) established metaphysical agreements, and in a world where •the horizon• has been erased, that world in some senses careens into metaphysical chaos. Value-systems cannot hold together. That this happens, is happening, can be further talked about to advantage.

To have referred to *Harbal* is, as I always have said, to refer to an •outcome• notable in our civilization. I like Harbal and admire his sense of integrity but most of that is irrelevant to my general observation: he is a man •extruded• by specific occurrences in the world of thought who lacks introspective capabilities. Had he more background in what I refer to very generally as •metaphysical predicates* his discourse would be different. He’d be able (for example) to understand the hugely metaphysical notion behind the symbol (I will use one recent example) of •Christ as King•. There would be advantage for him insofar as it would better enable him to understand the (metaphysical) thinking of others surrounding him.

You and I will differ (I suppose) in all of this. I guess it is a question of choice and focus of the will. Can you claim that everything I proposed is •unreal• and in your cherished sense •non-factual•? Yes. Beyond doubt.

Need we argue and dispute in the widest sense of the Culture Wars? Yes and absolutely. The battle is really the thing.

You can yack till the cow jumps over the moon, mention authors, and use all rational terminologies you wish to, but at a fundamental level I see you (to use a term from a paragraph above) a •brutal man•. However you came about is perhaps interesting, but the basic fact, this perceptive apprehension, is for me salient.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you (of all people) are going to open a post with a plea for brevity, you should avoid filling the rest of it with bloviated waffle next time.

You should stop using the word metaphysical altogether, that post constitutes a war crime against that innocent concept. Whatever it is that you use "metaphysical predicates" to refer to, it is not a good use for either word, every reference you make to that idea is pretty much unintelligible. "Metaphysical mind" is just mind. You don't need a whole metaphysics to hold a view about whether sex should be exclusively for procreation, just a few beliefs will suffice. Your "elevated metaphysics" is just a world view.

You sort of reference some sort of complaint against nihilism or perhaps you are suggesting that nihilism is an inescapable outcome of not having one of these "metaphysics", but you write in such mystical terms that picking an actual arguemnt out of your post is always tricky, even before the inevitable angry complaint about using "hot terms" or something. Somewhere in that mess appears to be the sort of prudential argument I alluded to a few times already, where it's bad in some way because of decay or something if people don't sort of agree with you. In logical terms, those arguments are usually not very compelling and tend to rely on a lot of propagandistic elements.

Nothing you've written suggests you have any basis for the big claims to superiority you've made. But your output is too flabby and pretentious to say very much about it with certainty.