There are Objective Moral Facts

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Phil8659 »

Oh wow!
Objective Moral Facts!

Well what are immoral facts?
What principle divides facts into, what? sub facts?

What is subjective morality?
And, what principle divides morality into what? sub morals?

Now, What is a Subjective immoral supposition?

Man, I am running out of super glue. By what principle do you glue words together? Is there a better glue?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by popeye1945 »

All meanings are cognitive and thus subjective this includes thoughts about morality which are only made manifest read objectified as structures, systems and institutions created to support and express those cognitive thoughts. These institutions and structures are biological extensions of human biology expressions of human nature. There is no objective moral fact in and of itself only moral feelings and thoughts created in the concrete to reflect back upon the human psyche.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 5:46 pm All meanings are cognitive and thus subjective this includes thoughts about morality which are only made manifest read objectified as structures, systems and institutions created to support and express those cognitive thoughts. These institutions and structures are biological extensions of human biology expressions of human nature.
There is no objective moral fact in and of itself only moral feelings and thoughts created in the concrete to reflect back upon the human psyche.
There is a need for detailed analysis and consideration of the above.

1. The biological structures in this case the physical mirror neurons are biological facts.

2. If in a discussion, a person expressed 'killing humans is not wrong, maybe just-killing is right' that would be an opinion and belief based on his feelings; this is not a fact nor an objective moral fact but it is related the subject of morality.

3. In the above case, the feeling expressed is a psychological fact that one has feelings driven by the emotional neural correlates. This is a fact of a moral feeling but not a moral fact.

4. Say in a war where the soldiers are ordered to shoot all enemies on sight. A fully armed soldier-A [secular] [in a winning position] has cornered his enemies [say 2 persons] who were totally unarmed and defenseless and had his gun engaged and pointing at them directly at point-blank distance. Then soldier-A spontaneously pointed his gun to the ground and waved them off, and the two enemies ran off.

4a. In this case, the active mirror neurons of soldier-A are triggered with empathy and thus did not kill the two enemies. This is a spontaneous act and not a matter of feelings and rationalization as in the typical Trolley dilemma.
Note,
-Mirror neurons are a fact [scientific -objective].
-Empathy is a fact [psychology, morality -objective]
-killing of humans is a fact [psychology and morality -objective]
-the above combined to create a moral potential of ought-not-ness to kill humans
-soldier-A is driven by the natural ought-not-ness to kill humans.
When the above are dealt within a credible moral FSK, that moral potential of ought-not-ness to kill humans is a moral fact as evident by the act of soldier-A in not killing the two enemies.

What are your views to the above as detailed?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:54 am
-Mirror neurons are a fact [scientific -objective].
Yes, mirror neurons are considered real in science.
-Empathy is a fact [psychology, morality -objective]
Yes, empathy is considered real in, amongst other fields, psychology. Morality however you are just throwing in because you already have a moral position that empathy is good.

Here, I'll show you....
The brain regions involved in state reactive aggression include orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), superior temporal gyrus, and amygdala. They are facts.
Reactive aggression is a fact, psychology, sociology, criminal justice. I cannot now say that it is moral to be aggressive. Or that we SHOULD develop those areas of the brain.
I will only do this if I think aggession is good. The regions of the brain associated with aggression do not support a moral position of enhanced aggression.

You have a moral position that empathy leads to less aggression and thus less killing. You find mirror neurons and then act as if their existence supports your moral position. But they do not. They may support people behaving in ways you like (and I like). But there is no is to ought argument enhanced by the existence of mirror neurons
or
an aggression preferring morality, like Sparta's say, could argue that the existence of parts of the brain that lead to aggression support an aggressive morality.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:46 pm But there is no is to ought argument...
You Philosophy-types are super confused.

When you talk about the insurmountability of the is-ought gap is that a descriptive statrement or a prescriptive statement?
Are you saying that the is-ougght gap cannot be bridged or it ought not be bridged?

If it's descriptive - then it's false. Humans arrive at oughts from ises all the time. We call them justifications. COVID's killing millions of people - we ought to find a cure! I am hungry - I ought to eat.

if it's prescriptive - then, uuuh... own goal?
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Phil8659 »

Plato once said that the greatest ignorance is when a person believes that they know what they provably do not.

Now, every grammar systems possible is derived by binary recursion. Now, it may be excusable to be ignorant of this fact as presented in the metaphors of the Bible, the Dialogs of Plato, the Elements of Euclid, but the definition of a thing? or the ignorance of your own computer, and even worse a fact your own perception tells you every day.
So, is stupidity objective and is it a fact? and is it immoral, yes, but apparently to you is a 747 that is flying overhead.

And to be completely ignorant of an anthropomorphism to boot? Are facts moral and immoral, or are you?

Answer me this, as every possible product of grammar is the result of standards of behavior, which you can actually comply with, and perhaps in your case with great effort, when does what you do with names become theoretical?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

wrongly posted
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Phil8659 »

Veritas Aequitas

Just listen to the sound of the engine overhead and maybe you too can be on your own Island yelling "Boss! Its de plane! its de plane!
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by popeye1945 »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas"
There is a need for detailed analysis and consideration of the above.

1. The biological structures in this case the physical mirror neurons are biological facts.

2. If in a discussion, a person expressed 'killing humans is not wrong, maybe just-killing is right' that would be an opinion and belief based on his feelings; this is not a fact nor an objective moral fact but it is related the subject of morality.

3. In the above case, the feeling expressed is a psychological fact that one has feelings driven by the emotional neural correlates. This is a fact of a moral feeling but not a moral fact.

4. Say in a war where the soldiers are ordered to shoot all enemies on sight. A fully armed soldier-A [secular] [in a winning position] has cornered his enemies [say 2 persons] who were totally unarmed and defenseless and had his gun engaged and pointing at them directly at point-blank distance. Then soldier-A spontaneously pointed his gun to the ground and waved them off, and the two enemies ran off.

4a. In this case, the active mirror neurons of soldier-A are triggered with empathy and thus did not kill the two enemies. This is a spontaneous act and not a matter of feelings and rationalization as in the typical Trolley dilemma.
Note,
-Mirror neurons are a fact [scientific -objective].
-Empathy is a fact [psychology, morality -objective]
-killing of humans is a fact [psychology and morality -objective]
-the above combined to create a moral potential of ought-not-ness to kill humans Veritas
-soldier-A is driven by the natural ought-not-ness to kill humans.
When the above are dealt within a credible moral FSK, that moral potential of ought-not-ness to kill humans is a moral fact as evident by the act of soldier-A in not killing the two enemies.

What are your views to the above as detailed?
[/quote]

Veritas.

You are talking about the communication of emotions, moral feelings, mirror neurons seem to have been evolved for just such occasions certainly the bodies doing the communication are objective fact or as the term indicates objects. I believe for something to be considered objective it needs to be an object and again your body is an object in the physical world. Your examples tend to be internal realities not objectified as physicalities, or in other words they are not manifest as objects in the physical world.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:57 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:46 pm But there is no is to ought argument...
You Philosophy-types are super confused.

When you talk about the insurmountability of the is-ought gap is that a descriptive statrement or a prescriptive statement?
Are you saying that the is-ougght gap cannot be bridged or it ought not be bridged?

If it's descriptive - then it's false. Humans arrive at oughts from ises all the time. We call them justifications. COVID's killing millions of people - we ought to find a cure! I am hungry - I ought to eat.

if it's prescriptive - then, uuuh... own goal?
We want to find a cure and obviously many people couch their desires and preferences in moral terms. No one denies any of that. You are not responding to the way VA creates and is-ought argument which I addressed.
You did not respond to my post or integrate any point I made into your response.
You act as if I am denying that people put things in moral terms. I don't. I know they create morals, have morals. People do all sorts of things.
You don't actually respond to posts that are made.

You are a person who posts in a philosophy forum. I am a person who posts in a philosophy forum.
Even your insults/labels don't make any sense.

Sometimes I check in just to see if you have changed or make a useful point, but it's the same old non-response posts. If you think you are not a philosophy type, maybe you should read some philosophy and then you might notice how poorly you actually argue. If you have read philosophy - or have - then you are a philosophy type. Grow the fuck up. You pissed off, fine. Who isn't pissed off by something. But right now you're a waste of time.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:08 am We want to find a cure and obviously many people couch their desires and preferences in moral terms. No one denies any of that.
We want to find a cure or we ought to find a cure?

The one is a statement of fact.
The other is moralising.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:08 am You are not responding to the way VA creates and is-ought argument which I addressed.
So there is a "right" and "wrong" way to create is-ought arguments, and we ought to do it the right way?!?

Isn't that couching your desires and preferences in moral terms?!?
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:08 am You did not respond to my post or integrate any point I made into your response.
So I ought to integrate the points you made in my post?
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:08 am You act as if I am denying that people put things in moral terms. I don't. I know they create morals, have morals. People do all sorts of things.
You don't actually respond to posts that are made.
I am not acting as if you are denying that people put things in moral terms.

I am acting as if you are denying that YOU are putting things in moral terms and then passing it off as "people" doing it.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:08 am You are a person who posts in a philosophy forum. I am a person who posts in a philosophy forum.
Even your insults/labels don't make any sense.
Which is why I have to spell it out for you (seeming as you are struggling with basic English comprehension).

Correcting people is a moral action! If there are no objective moral facts then what "error" are you trying to correct?
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:08 am Sometimes I check in just to see if you have changed or make a useful point, but it's the same old non-response posts.
As the old adage goes... I can only explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

If you think my factual characterisation of morality-in-action is is not useful on a thread about OBJECTIVE MORAL FACTS....I have no idea what else you are looking for.

This is ALL Philosophy is good for. Descriptions, and descriptions of prescriptions.

NOT prescriptions.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:08 am If you think you are not a philosophy type, maybe you should read some philosophy and then you might notice how poorly you actually argue.
So I OUGHT not argue "poorly"? And you know what "non-poor" argumentation looks like. Aaaaah, you naughty moralist.

The reason I am arguing "poorly" is because I am not arguing at all!

I reject the practice of argumentation as just another moral norm. You think I ought to make arguments; and I think I there's no good reason to play by your rules.

Screw you, gatekeeper!
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:08 am If you have read philosophy - or have - then you are a philosophy type.
Would this be an appropriate time to moralise and point out that you ought not be committing a fallacy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

From where I am lookin anyone who DOES Philosophy is a Philosophy type. Even if they haven't read any.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:08 am Grow the fuck up. You pissed off, fine. Who isn't pissed off by something. But right now you're a waste of time.
Dude! Look in the mirror. That's not me you are describing.

I am merely describing the situation.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by popeye1945 »

The term objective or objectivity means what is found in apparent reality in the way of objects. Morality is an internal subjective sensitivity that when formulated and organized in the mind can then be made manifest through the will of a conscious subject/s, the desire to do so makes it a reaction not an action. The manifestations are objects, systems and norms established through institutions as biological extensions of humanity or human nature.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Astro Cat »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 7:39 am There are Objective Moral Facts

First a Caveat:
Moral statements [descriptive and prescriptive of moral-ought] related to opinions and beliefs of individuals and groups are not moral facts.

1. What is Fact?
We must first differentiate the two main types facts, i.e.
  • A. Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact
    B. Anti-Realism's Fact.
A. Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact
This is Peter Holmes' et. al. sort of facts [Metaphysical Realism] where 'fact' is a feature of 'reality' and is truth-apt, i.e. capable of being true or false.
Such fact is not grounded upon reality but merely grounded on linguistic matters, thus such facts are not realistic at all.

B. Anti-Realism's Fact.
What is fact to me is the Anti-Realism's Fact in opposite to the Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact.
A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above what is fact [anti-realist] is conditioned by a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

2. What is Morality
I have defined what is morality here in terms of Ethics represented by Moral [Pure] and Applied [Ethics in practice].
What is Ethics & Morality is fundamentally the management of Good over Evil. What is Good is not-Evil.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well-being of the individual and to humanity towards the preservation of the human species.
Would you describe this definition of evil as a kind of consequentialism, then; like pragmatism? For instance, in the classic trolley problem, pulling the lever to actively murder one person to save five is not evil because by some interpretations it's "net-positive" (1 person dead vs. 5 dead)?

There are entire volumes of literature about how a simplistic consequentialist definition of evil is extremely problematic, are you prepared for that?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:3. What is Objectivity?
What is Philosophical Objectivity is explained in this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
As explained above,
  • what is a scientific fact is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
    A scientific fact is objective
    What is scientific objectivity is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
From the above;
What is objectivity is thus conditioned upon a specific FSK. [3]
A fact [anti-realist] is conditioned upon a specific FSK. [1B]
Thus a fact is objective when conditioned upon a specific FSK

A fact is moral when conditioned upon a moral FSK.
Therefore a moral fact is objective when conditioned upon a moral FSK.
As such, there are objective moral facts.

Caveat: Moral statements [descriptive and prescriptive of moral-ought] related to opinions and beliefs of individuals and groups are not moral facts.

What are objective moral facts?
Objective moral facts emerge from the moral FSK based on a matter-of-fact of moral-potentiality as justified by the scientific FSK and are represented by physical neural correlates in the brain and body.

Thus my point;
There are Objective Moral Facts

Views, counters??
I think I am confused by the terminology. I've read this post, but I'm not walking away with a clear and concise understanding of what a "moral FSK" is. It's tough to parse and be able to tell whether your arguments in this bottom section follow. For instance, I'm not sure whether "A fact is objective when conditioned upon a specific FSK" is true (as I'm still unsure exactly what an FSK is in this context).

I'm also not sure that what is "moral" is defined. When following the links from your OP, the closest thing to a definition I could find is a quotation from Richard William Paul and Linda Elder that defines ethics (at least) as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures." Is this also what determines what we'll call moral: whether something helps or harms sentient creatures?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Astro Cat wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 7:39 am There are Objective Moral Facts

First a Caveat:
Moral statements [descriptive and prescriptive of moral-ought] related to opinions and beliefs of individuals and groups are not moral facts.

1. What is Fact?
We must first differentiate the two main types facts, i.e.
  • A. Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact
    B. Anti-Realism's Fact.
A. Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact
This is Peter Holmes' et. al. sort of facts [Metaphysical Realism] where 'fact' is a feature of 'reality' and is truth-apt, i.e. capable of being true or false.
Such fact is not grounded upon reality but merely grounded on linguistic matters, thus such facts are not realistic at all.

B. Anti-Realism's Fact.
What is fact to me is the Anti-Realism's Fact in opposite to the Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact.
A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above what is fact [anti-realist] is conditioned by a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

2. What is Morality
I have defined what is morality here in terms of Ethics represented by Moral [Pure] and Applied [Ethics in practice].
What is Ethics & Morality is fundamentally the management of Good over Evil. What is Good is not-Evil.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well-being of the individual and to humanity towards the preservation of the human species.
Would you describe this definition of evil as a kind of consequentialism, then; like pragmatism? For instance, in the classic trolley problem, pulling the lever to actively murder one person to save five is not evil because by some interpretations it's "net-positive" (1 person dead vs. 5 dead)?

There are entire volumes of literature about how a simplistic consequentialist definition of evil is extremely problematic, are you prepared for that?
You may have been misled by the term 'net-negative' above.
Note I had used 'net-negative' and not 'net-positive'.
If I had used 'net-positive' it would be applicable to the casuistry trolley dilemma. My definition of evil as 'net-negative' has nothing to do with consequentialism nor pragmatism.

My approach to evil would be to rate 'genocide of humanity with WMDs' at say 99/100 degrees of evilness, small scale genocides at 90/100, murder at 80/100 and petty violence at 5/100. From the above, we will tabulate [appx] a taxonomy of evil acts.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:3. What is Objectivity?
What is Philosophical Objectivity is explained in this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
As explained above,
  • what is a scientific fact is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
    A scientific fact is objective
    What is scientific objectivity is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
From the above;
What is objectivity is thus conditioned upon a specific FSK. [3]
A fact [anti-realist] is conditioned upon a specific FSK. [1B]
Thus a fact is objective when conditioned upon a specific FSK

A fact is moral when conditioned upon a moral FSK.
Therefore a moral fact is objective when conditioned upon a moral FSK.
As such, there are objective moral facts.

Caveat: Moral statements [descriptive and prescriptive of moral-ought] related to opinions and beliefs of individuals and groups are not moral facts.

What are objective moral facts?
Objective moral facts emerge from the moral FSK based on a matter-of-fact of moral-potentiality as justified by the scientific FSK and are represented by physical neural correlates in the brain and body.

Thus my point;
There are Objective Moral Facts

Views, counters??
I think I am confused by the terminology. I've read this post, but I'm not walking away with a clear and concise understanding of what a "moral FSK" is. It's tough to parse and be able to tell whether your arguments in this bottom section follow. For instance, I'm not sure whether "A fact is objective when conditioned upon a specific FSK" is true (as I'm still unsure exactly what an FSK is in this context).
A FSK is a Framework and System of Knowledge or FSR -of Reality.
All knowledge claims [in degrees of credibility] must be conditioned upon a specific FSK. Otherwise the claim would be mere nonsense.
A scientific fact when conditioned upon the scientific FSK is true scientifically.

Note from the WIKI article;
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.

All the above facts are conditioned by their respective FSK with its own degree of credibility in comparison to the scientific FSK as the standard.
The linguistic fact by a linguistic FSK, an astronomical fact by an astronomical FSK, a legal fact by a legal FSK and so on.
At present the most credible facts are from the scientific FSK whilst they are not absolute facts/truths.
I'm also not sure that what is "moral" is defined. When following the links from your OP, the closest thing to a definition I could find is a quotation from Richard William Paul and Linda Elder that defines ethics (at least) as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures." Is this also what determines what we'll call moral: whether something helps or harms sentient creatures?
Morality is basically avoiding evil [as defined] and promoting good in relation to humans only.
Otherwise we should not kill non-humans like bacteria, viruses, insects and killing of non-humans animals for food.
There are other non-moral considerations in not killing and harming other sentient creatures.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Astro Cat wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:15 am For instance, I'm not sure whether "A fact is objective when conditioned upon a specific FSK" is true (as I'm still unsure exactly what an FSK is in this context).
If you tell him you're a physicist he'll take the time to try and impress you with many detail as the science "FSK" thing is a big deal to him.

Ultimately, if you sit down and create a scoring system, Vestigial Arquebus believes THAT by itself is sufficient to convert any subjective valuation into objective, measurable, dependable fact. Thus he has argued that Miss Universe is a measurement system that collects true objective data about feminine beauty.

Attempting to get this idea across and have it gain traction is why he has launched about 90 threads here.
Post Reply