What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Here are more of those damnably indeterminate signs.

Here are more of those damnably indeterminate signs.

Here are more of those damnably indeterminate signs.

And here's one more damnably indeterminate sign.

Yawn.

Who said anything about indeterminacy? Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is attempting to muddy the waters again.

You have clearly determined that some use of signs is "wrong"/"incorrect" while other use of signs is "right"/"correct"

Everybody uses signs however they use signs and different people may use signs differently, sure. But what makes any particular use "wrong"? Is it something more than your mere disapproval towards the repurposing of words?

I am starting to suspect that Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes suffers terribly from the ailment of Western Philosophy - being deeply out of touch with his own emotions/feelings. So much so he doesn't see that his moral opinions are smothered all over the connotation of his words.

[Peter Holmes]

An unpleasant, intellectually challenged and self-confessed troll made the following remark.

'Peter "Dumb ****" Holmes keeps strawmanning everything said. It's difficult and incredibly painful to attempt to correct somebody so fucking stupid.'

You can't straw man an argument that doesn't exist.

[Skepdick]

An unpleasant, intellectually challenged and self-confessed troll made the following remark.

'Peter "Dumb ****" Holmes keeps strawmanning everything said. It's difficult and incredibly painful to attempt to correct somebody so fucking stupid.'

You can't straw man an argument that doesn't exist.

So he doesn't even posess the leeway of imagination to grasp the spirit of the concept when applied beyond argumentative language.

Signature Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes

[Peter Holmes]

Another customarily pleasant remark.

'So [Peter "Dumb ****" Holmes] doesn't even posess [sic] the leeway of imagination to grasp the spirit of the concept when applied beyond argumentative language.'

Oooo. Get her!

The dick-for-brains can't rub two thoughts together. But we're supposed to use the leeway of imagination to grasp the spirit of the concept of straw manning...a non-existent argument.

I'll wait for the argument. Nothing so far, except penile posturing and nastiness. Cos gives a shit about arguments?

[Skepdick]

Another customarily pleasant remark.

'So [Peter "Dumb ****" Holmes] doesn't even posess [sic] the leeway of imagination to grasp the spirit of the concept when applied beyond argumentative language.'

Oooo. Get her!

The dick-for-brains can't rub two thoughts together. But we're supposed to use the leeway of imagination to grasp the spirit of the concept of straw manning...a non-existent argument.

I'll wait for the argument. Nothing so far, except penile posturing and nastiness. Cos gives a shit about arguments?

Q.E.D desperately struggling to re-assert control by enforcing social norms that nobody gives a fuck about outside of his little kingdom.

Ought I present Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes with an argument?

Rub as many thoughts together as you need to convince me.

Make sure to explain why it has to be a deductive argument.
Why not an inductive arguments?
Why not an abductive arguments?
Why not a dialectical arguments?
Why not a transcendental arguments?
Why not definitional tautologies?

Fucking normative-peddling cookie cutter Philosopher has pretense to being able to rub thoughts together. Still hasn' no grasp on why deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems such as the universe.

[Skepdick]

All of the above is the usual strategic diversion from Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

In pretending that he's owed an argument he has mastefully avoided telling us what makes the relationship between any given signifier-signified pair correct; or incorrect.

[Peter Holmes]

No one owes anyone an argument. But I'm here for valid and sound arguments with premises and conclusions.

For example, it's possible to construct an argument about Saussure's bifurcation of the sign into signifier and signified, and its intellectually catastrophic consequences - such as in Derrida's deconstruction.

But - who cares about arguments? Heroic intellectual rebels needn't waste the time and effort. Vomiting bile is much easier.

[Skepdick]

No one owes anyone an argument. But I'm here for valid and sound arguments with premises and conclusions.

Sound arguments? What the hell are those?

Have you ever heard the expression "One person's modus ponens is another's modus tollens."?

For example, it's possible to construct an argument about Saussure's bifurcation of the sign into signifier and signified, and its intellectually catastrophic consequences - such as in Derrida's deconstruction.

It's possible to construct any argument about any obvious conclusion, but why do you need to construct arguments for obvious conclusions?

Saussure's argument can't possibly be sound anyway. Bifurcation implies that the signifier and signified were once unified as a sign, but that's never been a true premise throughout human history so the argument is unsound and yet the separation between signifiers and signified has always been true.

But you said you want sound arguments. Did you lie about that or are you just confused about your own expectations?

But - who cares about arguments? Heroic intellectual rebels needn't waste the time and effort. Vomiting bile is much easier.

What I am doing has nothing to do with rebelion. It's more like avoiding the stupidity disguised as "intellectualism".

The true premises required for any sound argument are NOT the product of a sound argument.

I wonder why an intellectual giant such as Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes still requires the training wheels of deductive logic to reason with.


Idiots:
P1. All men are mortal
P2. Socrates is a man.
C. Socrates is mortal.

Non-idiots:
Socrates is mortal because he's fucking dead. Do you really need a fucking argument to get here?

[Iwannaplato]

To describe the ways we use signs such as words is not to claim that we ought to use them in those ways - and certainly not to claim that it's morally right to use them in those ways, and morally wrong not to.

And Iwannaplato is right: to say there are no moral facts is not to say there ought to be no moral facts.

A: There's a dog in the living room.
B: No, there isn't.
A: Are you saying dogs shouldn't go in the living room.
B: No, I looked and there isn't one in there.
A: So, I shouldn't say there's a dog in the living room.
B: I wouldn't care to weigh in on that. But there's no dog in there. You believed it, I guess, and said it. But there's no dog in there.

A: I'm dead.
B: No, you're not dead.
A: Are you saying it's morally wrong for me to be dead?
B: No, I'm saying you're alive.
A: Oh, then you're saying I shouldn't say I am dead.
B: No, I'm just letting my son here know that you're not dead. If it makes you feel good, please say it. Just trying to stop any confusions.
or
B: No, but you're not dead. I disagree with what you said.

[Skepdick]

To describe the ways we use signs such as words is not to claim that we ought to use them in those ways - and certainly not to claim that it's morally right to use them in those ways, and morally wrong not to.

And Iwannaplato is right: to say there are no moral facts is not to say there ought to be no moral facts.

A: There's a dog in the living room.
B: No, there isn't.
A: Are you saying dogs shouldn't go in the living room.
B: No, I looked and there isn't one in there.
A: So, I shouldn't say there's a dog in the living room.
B: I wouldn't care to weigh in on that. But there's no dog in there. You believed it, I guess, and said it. But there's no dog in there.

A: I'm dead.
B: No, you're not dead.
A: Are you saying it's morally wrong for me to be dead?
B: No, I'm saying you're alive.
A: Oh, then you're saying I shouldn't say I am dead.
B: No, I'm just letting my son here know that you're not dead. If it makes you feel good, please say it. Just trying to stop any confusions.
or
B: No, but you're not dead. I disagree with what you said.

That is the usual confusion about the way truth is supposed to work.

You think the world comes prepackaged with things like dogs, living rooms which stand in some relation to each other e.g in, on, under, around or next to each other.
You think the world has a priori structure and by some magic happenstance this structure actually corresponds to the structure of your language as expressed in prepositions.

Is there a dog in the room from a cosmological perspective?
Is there a dog in the room from a quantum physics perspective?

Such questions or statements seem disproportionate.

But I am just plagiarizing…

https://youtu.be/TDiENpmpY78

This is why any reasoning founded upon ”the way we use words” doesn’t work - it’s too colloquial and populist. Besides the fact that I live in a country with 11 official languages (which one is THE way we use words?!?). We use words to different ends; we see the world from different vantage points and our context causes us to develop different dialects. We invent new uses of words; jargon and entire new languages (theories and paradigms) to navigate the world better. And all these concepts we invent or acquire become part of the lingo.

But if use is meaning and the purpose of my vocabulary is different from the purpose of yours then it follows directly by implication that we mean different things even if we are using the exact same words.

This silly notion of treating language as a fixed entity is the Logocentrist lie. Before you even bother to engage in argument first make sure you aren’t talking cross purposes. Because that’s a pointless argument.

[Skepdick]

And Iwannaplato is right: to say there are no moral facts is not to say there ought to be no moral facts.

This comment (and Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes agreeing with it) is profoundly perplexing. If I wasn’t so charitable I would immediately point out his utter intellectual dishonesty. Let’s look at it closer, shall we?

For somebody who accepts the existence of facts it follows that any sub-category of facts exists also. By deduction.

Physical facts.
Psychological facts.
Biological facts.
Cosmological facts.
Moral facts.

Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes has repetitively argued that epistemology isn’t ontology. Even if it so happens that we haven’t yet discovered any moral facts nothing that we know of precludes their existence.

So why then is Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes actively arguing against the possibility of moral facts, and not merely against the lack of knowledge of moral facts? Why is it that Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes is actively arguing that the modifier “moral” precludes factuality?

Because he is a dumb intellectually dishonest cunt who has defined “morality” and “objectivity” in a prescriptive, mutually exclusive fashion such that even if we agree that there ought to be moral facts, and perhaps even if we agreed that the existence of moral facts isn’t impossible - we just haven’t figured what they are; his current mutually exclusive categories forbid this possibility.

If you ever happened to produce a moral fact Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes’s epistemology will accuse you of “category error” because it is forbidden to put things in the wrong categories!

Talk about other people’s definitions getting in the way of your thinking, eh? But there are no normatives!

[Peter Holmes]

We ask for one example of a so-called moral fact, with an explanation of why it's a fact and not the expression of an opinion. Response? Tumbleweed. Plus frothing anger and nastiness.

We can show why it's a fact that water is H2O. Now, please show why it's a fact that, say, abortion is morally wrong. Or not morally wrong. What evidence is there for either moral assertion?

Answer: none. Why? Because there are no moral facts. The end.

[Skepdick]

We can show why it's a fact that water is H2O.

No you can’t. The way we use words you can’t show why it is a fact. You know - from first principles by direct empirical demonstration without appealing or referring to any human bodies of work.

You can’t even show why water is water.

You can only TELL (which is different from SHOWING) such things if you interpret it via the definitions in the periodic table, but then you are appealing to a human FSK and VA has you by the balls.

I can most certainly show you why it is a fact (by direct demonstration) that apples fall from trees, but I most definitely can’t show you why an apple is an apple; why a tree is a tree; or why falling is falling. I can only TELL you such things.

Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes doesn’t even know how we use words “show” and “tell”

[Skepdick]

there are no moral facts. The end.

Argument from ignorance

How does one even begin to fix such stupidity?

If there are facts; then by deduction there are physical facts; and psychological facts; and behavioural facts; and facts about human desires; and facts about human ability to manifest their desires into being; and all other kinds of facts.

It is on Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes to explain why he has defined “morality” such that it precludes the possibility of moral facts.

In science negative claims carry the strongest burden of proof; but in Philosophy apparently you can pretend to be outraged; commit a bunch of logical fallacies and demand others cure your ignorance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We ask for one example of a so-called moral fact, with an explanation of why it's a fact and not the expression of an opinion. Response? Tumbleweed. Plus frothing anger and nastiness.

We can show why it's a fact that water is H2O. Now, please show why it's a fact that, say, abortion is morally wrong. Or not morally wrong. What evidence is there for either moral assertion?

Answer: none. Why? Because there are no moral facts. The end.

You are so blind that if there is a 100 kg of gold nugget in front of you and you touch it, you think it is only a rock and walk on.

That we can show why it's a fact that water is H2O is not because your father or mother said so.
It has to be specifically scientific fact that water is H2O conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.

I have presented this a 1000 times, but it just cannot get into your very thick skull; {mine}

• A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  For example,
  "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
  "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
  Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion. {of a sentient being but not a collective of subjects within a FSK}
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Note skepdick's;

For somebody who accepts the existence of facts it follows that any sub-category of facts exists also. By deduction.

Physical facts.
Psychological facts.
Biological facts.
Cosmological facts.
Moral facts.

Along with the above principles, we can have a moral FSK which can be credible and reliable as near to the scientific FSK.

Morality-proper's focus is not about rightness or wrongness.
Thus the question of 'abortion is right or wrong' is a non-starter re morality-proper.

I have given an example of an objective moral fact, i.e. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans which is a matter of fact and that can be verified by the science-biology FSK; when inputted into the moral FSK, it emerges as an objective moral fact.

When the majority of humanity recognize the existence of the objective moral fact, i.e. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans, and optimize it moral functions, all issues related to 'abortion' will be resolved optimally in time [in the future, of course not now].