There are Moral Facts

[Peter Holmes]

I'm other words, this is not the moral sense of "ought" that you're employing here

This guy has been shamelessly trying to sneak hypothetical imperatives as categorical ones for years, many have tried to explain this to him, he won't get it, it's a waste of effort.

Yeah, I'm getting the impression he's another person I'm going to have to wind up just functionally ignoring. I'm not that familiar with him yet, so I was hoping he'd be someone one can reason with, but the fact that he regularly ignores stuff one types and keeps just referring to other posts, other threads of his (with content that appears like a prepackaged spiel that he keeps repeating) is making me leery already.

VA either doesn't understand or ignores plain refutation of his piled-up-trash arguments. But, in my opinion, VA isn't a troll - so I''ve been willing to engage. Probably a mistake.

[Skepdick]

VA either doesn't understand or ignores plain refutation of his piled-up-trash.

Can you really fault him? You too keep ignoring the implications of your refutations - when applied to your own reasoning, your reasons are self-defeating.

You continually practice double standards: do as I say, not as I do. How could he possibly learn any other mode of being?

But, in my opinion, VA isn't a troll

In my opinion you are a troll.

Medice, cura te ipsum!

[Terrapin Station]

This guy has been shamelessly trying to sneak hypothetical imperatives as categorical ones for years, many have tried to explain this to him, he won't get it, it's a waste of effort.

Yeah, I'm getting the impression he's another person I'm going to have to wind up just functionally ignoring. I'm not that familiar with him yet, so I was hoping he'd be someone one can reason with, but the fact that he regularly ignores stuff one types and keeps just referring to other posts, other threads of his (with content that appears like a prepackaged spiel that he keeps repeating) is making me leery already.

You are too arrogant based on ignorance.

The currency of this forum is sound arguments as I have emphasized all the time, i.e. verified and justified empirically and philosophically. Show me where I have failed on this maxim.

On the other hand you take different views [dogmatic] not based on objectivity [i.e. empirically and philosophically] but rather based on emotional, psychological and ideological reasons pulsating within you which you are ignorant of. That is why people like PantFlasher is throwing tantrums instead of objective arguments and you seem to be following suit.

"prepackaged spiel"??
I am surprised you are so intellectually lacking.

It started from this 312-pages thread on
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

In that discussion [which triggered my interest] there were many issues that were raised that required specialized discussions in the details as a separate topic.
This is a mark of wanting the discussion to be intellectually serious and rigorous.

It would be very stupid & incompetent of me to wallow in a Posts-Salad-of-312-pages and searching for 'needles in the haystack' whenever a serious point is brought up.

Thus, so far I have raised more than 50 separate threads within "Ethical Theory" which are necessary and relevant to support my points in detail and for future reference so I don't have to repeat every time the same point is raised again and again [which PH did regularly] or in response to newcomers on the same issues I had discussed.

Thanks to Peter Holmes' persistence and Sculptor's provocation, I have added >1200 files [books, papers and articles] in >60 folders related to the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Don't be too arrogant, I don't believe I will learn anything new from you except I traded posts with you merely for the purpose of refreshing the knowledge I have compiled.

lol that you responded to this post and not the other--especially even though the other post was in direct response to you, addressing points in your argument, yet this post was not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah, I'm getting the impression he's another person I'm going to have to wind up just functionally ignoring. I'm not that familiar with him yet, so I was hoping he'd be someone one can reason with, but the fact that he regularly ignores stuff one types and keeps just referring to other posts, other threads of his (with content that appears like a prepackaged spiel that he keeps repeating) is making me leery already.

You are too arrogant based on ignorance.

The currency of this forum is sound arguments as I have emphasized all the time, i.e. verified and justified empirically and philosophically. Show me where I have failed on this maxim.

On the other hand you take different views [dogmatic] not based on objectivity [i.e. empirically and philosophically] but rather based on emotional, psychological and ideological reasons pulsating within you which you are ignorant of. That is why people like PantFlasher is throwing tantrums instead of objective arguments and you seem to be following suit.

"prepackaged spiel"??
I am surprised you are so intellectually lacking.

It started from this 312-pages thread on
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

In that discussion [which triggered my interest] there were many issues that were raised that required specialized discussions in the details as a separate topic.
This is a mark of wanting the discussion to be intellectually serious and rigorous.

It would be very stupid & incompetent of me to wallow in a Posts-Salad-of-312-pages and searching for 'needles in the haystack' whenever a serious point is brought up.

Thus, so far I have raised more than 50 separate threads within "Ethical Theory" which are necessary and relevant to support my points in detail and for future reference so I don't have to repeat every time the same point is raised again and again [which PH did regularly] or in response to newcomers on the same issues I had discussed.

Thanks to Peter Holmes' persistence and Sculptor's provocation, I have added >1200 files [books, papers and articles] in >60 folders related to the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Don't be too arrogant, I don't believe I will learn anything new from you except I traded posts with you merely for the purpose of refreshing the knowledge I have compiled.

lol that you responded to this post and not the other--especially even though the other post was in direct response to you, addressing points in your argument, yet this post was not.

Re the other post, since you are deliberating to ignore me flippantly, why should I waste my time with you on the philosophical issues, thus I'd intended to make the first move to ignore you before you ignore me. [I'll use my discretion].

The above post is not related to any philosophical issues per se but merely informative.