'Ought' is 'Is'

[Atla]

You can't explain word salads using more word salads

That's why I said I'll explain it to you as if you are 5 years old.

I understand the big words (word salas) goes over your head.

You understand nothing, that's why you only produce word salads. In fact many 5 year olds make more sense than you

[Skepdick]

You understand nothing, that's why you only produce word salads. In fact many 5 year olds make more sense than you

Good. Have a 5 year old explain it to you. They seem to speak your language.

[Atla]

You understand nothing, that's why you only produce word salads. In fact many 5 year olds make more sense than you

Good. Have a 5 year old explain it to you. They seem to speak your language.

There is nothing to explain about word salads, the only curious thing here is, how come you can't produce anything else?

[Skepdick]

There is nothing to explain about word salads, the only curious thing here is, how come you can't produce anything else?

The explanation is trivial.

I didn't realise you had the comprehension skills of a 5 year old.

[Atla]

There is nothing to explain about word salads, the only curious thing here is, how come you can't produce anything else?

The explanation is trivial.

I didn't realise you had the comprehension skills of a 5 year old.

More word salads, talking to yourself.
I wonder what it must be like to exist without the ability to understand anything?

[Skepdick]

There is nothing to explain about word salads, the only curious thing here is, how come you can't produce anything else?

The explanation is trivial.

I didn't realise you had the comprehension skills of a 5 year old.

More word salads, talking to yourself.
I wonder what it must be like to exist without the ability to understand anything?

Seems like I over-estimated your age group.

[Atla]

The explanation is trivial.

I didn't realise you had the comprehension skills of a 5 year old.

More word salads, talking to yourself.
I wonder what it must be like to exist without the ability to understand anything?

Seems like I over-estimated your age group.

Except you don't really have the ability to make any estimates about any humans

[Skepdick]

Except you don't really have the ability to make any estimates about any humans

Wow, those are big words for a 3 year old!

[Atla]

Except you don't really have the ability to make any estimates about any humans

Wow, those are big words for a 3 year old!

Maybe big words for you, leave 3 year olds alone

[Skepdick]

Maybe big words for you, leave 3 year olds alone

As you wish.

[Sculptor]

@skeptic @Atla

I think you two girls might need some Mayonnaise.

[Atla]

Maybe big words for you, leave 3 year olds alone

As you wish.

Good, you've been beating up yourself for too long.

[Atla]

@skeptic @Atla

I think you two girls might need some Mayonnaise.

Ah the other retard has arrived

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

One of your shittest arguments yet. Admittedly I am only bothering to look at about one in ten of your threads because as noted many times before, they are all just the same pile of mistaken warmed over trash which you repeat on an endless loop of non-learning.

P2 only makes sense if you are asserting that oughtness is an actual property of actual objects, which is absurd.
Otherwise you are insisting that all-there-is includes all ideas, including the fantastical ones (unicorns, phlogiston, and both flat and donut shaped Earths), as well as the logical impossibilities (married batchelors). Most importantly though, it allows for mutually contradictory "is" things, such as the round Earth, and the donut Earth and the flat Earth all at once, rendering your argument, predictably by now to all sane men, completely fucking worthless.

Don't be too arrogant when you are the very fucking ignorant one.
Your philosophy grade is only kindergarten level or at best Grade 3 level.

'Oughtness' is a property of humans in this case which is part of all-there-is.
Thus wherever there is 'oughtness' [to be justified] it is part of all-there-is, i.e. "is".
Oughtness within Morality and Ethics are only confined to human duty and obligations.
Whatever is 'oughtness' in this case must be justified empirically and philosophically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are just not very bright.

As usual your typical one-liner without justifications.
That is more precise in reflecting your own 'not-very-bright' and intellectual capacity.

You are too dull to see that I already trashed you absurd "proof".
Neither oughts nor ises exist as "real" things, they are just ideas to help us describe the world around us. They are words that help us forge relationship of ideas.
There is no necessary real connection between "all" and these words, since the universe is quite happy to abide without us and our petty concerns.
There is a good reason we make a distinction between ought and is, and that is because we use those ideas for DIFFERENT things. Ought is not "IS".

Now at least you are trying to talk and argue but I will show you won't go very far with the above.

Too Dull??
Note I am thinking 3 to 5 steps ahead of your constipated ideas.

You need to think wide, i.e. the 'meta-' then 'meta-meta-' then 'meta-meta-meta-' of reality.

If 'oughts' are merely ideas, aren't 'ideas' part of reality i.e. all-there-is.
As such ideas are "is_es" thus
An 'Ought' which is an idea is also an 'is".

As I had stated the reason why 'ought' is separated from "is" is due to the necessary inherent dualism [more critical for survival] evolved in humans differentiating from the 'unity' of all-there-is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism
The problem is when humans are driven to the more dominant dualism of "ought" from "is" they totally forget about the underlying encompassing unity "is."

When you insist on playing the game of dualism, the rule of dualism and classical logic is 'ought' cannot be derived from "is" and it is rightly so because that is the rule!
But you forget rules are set by the common human mind within a common reality of 'all-there-is', i.e. whatever [diversity] of the 'all' it is "is" [part of unity].

You are too dull to understand there is unity [is] within diversity [is-es, oughts, etc.]