So you don't know WHEN it refers to but you know WHAT it refers to? That's impossible.
A what today and a what yesterday are not the same what.
Why do you need clarity if you already know what I am talking about?
So you don't know WHEN it refers to but you know WHAT it refers to? That's impossible.
Why do you need clarity if you already know what I am talking about?
Right then
Right that.
100% of the time I am honest all the time.
LOL As I IMPLIED in the reply BEFORE this one you have NO idea NOR clue as to what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that I WAS REFERRING TO.
If you SAY SO.
But I DO NOT KNOW what you were/are talking ABOUT?
BUT, what did the 'that' word refer to, EXACTLY?
Besides BEING Wrong in relation to 'what' I was TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING TO, this one is SHOWING and PROVING how 'it' LIES.
OKAY, IF this is what you BELIEVE is happening and occurring here, then this MUST BE what is HAPPENING, to you.
Are you going to try to substantiate that claim, or are you just blowing hot air as per usual?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:22 am PH and gang do not realize their insistence there are no moral facts, no moral objectivity, i.e. no Moral Normativity, except there are is only Moral Relativism is 'SELF-REFUTING'.
The fact is;
"PH's insistence, there are no moral facts, no moral objectivity, no Moral Realism i.e. no Moral Normativity, except there are is only Moral Relativism"
is itself an ought and normativity, i.e. a epistemic normativity.
But I do NOT BELIEVE that and have NEVER BELIEVED that.
EXACTLY AS I SAID, we do NOT ALWAYS get what we want.
There you go... lying again.
There you go. Lying again. Of course I like it when inconsistent and/or contradictory views are pointed out and shown.
Another lie.