Whenever that happened, I did it by understanding what your argument was, and comparing it to other beliefs you do have.
And I'm in your debt for it.
*
I mention this today because you are currently wandering around insisting that everyone who disagrees with you is an amoralist
Amoralist is my word for folks who reject the possibility of moral fact, or who say -- flat out -- there is no moral fact. As I asked Pete: would you prefer
moral opinionist?
*
you are not taking any trouble to understand anyone's arguments but your own.
Oh, I get
yours:
there's no evidence of moral fact: there is no moral fact.
*
you aren't making a high quality persuasive argument
I'm not tryin' too. As I say...
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:42 pm there's a gulf between you and me as amoralist and moralist I don't know how to bridge. Neither of us moves the other.
I do, however, know how to hold the amoralist to his own standard. Pete, for example...
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:37 pm...the slur that we who deny the existence of moral facts are amoralists is a vicious libel. Prove that it's true, or withdraw it. Do the right thing.
I laughed at him. I mean, really, an amoralist, a guy who's the forum champion of
there is no moral fact, there's only moral opinion wants me to
do the right thing. How is
that not high-larious?
And you with the whole...
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:36 pmYou hae the right to be treated in accord with the gender that you know yourself to be
You have a right comin' from a guy who cannot, will not, agree a person has natural rights.
You guys want to deny the cake exists, but you still want your slice.