Yes, at least you got this right, because you are demanding something from me I will not provide it. However, and once again, if you ever ask for clarification, in the future, then I certainly will.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:30 pm'Oooo. Cos you're demanding an example of a moral fact - I won't provide one.'Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:03 amI never assumed nor said otherwise.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:32 am
Physical things aren't objective or subjective. For example, a dog isn't objective or subjective.To repeat, also, I have already agreed with and accepted your definition here.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:32 am To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions.
So, why are you repeating what you are here?
Did you forget, did you not comprehend, or has something else occured here?
Also, let us not forget that I have already pointed out that this is just your opinion, and thus not necessarily an objective fact all.Do you only think?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:32 am And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And I think you agree with these explanations of the termsOkay.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:32 am It follows that the only thing that could 'make' morality objective is the existence of moral facts: moral features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.If you had ever asked me to, over all of our discussions here, then I would have. However, considering you never have, and are now demanding me to, then I will not.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:32 am Given this, I suggest you demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - which means showing that any moral assertion is true. Choose one you're convinced is a fact - and just do it.
However, if you ever ask for clarification, in the future, then I certainly will.But, it seems that it is perfectly okay for you to make unsubstituted claims about morality being subjective only, correct?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:32 am Then you won't need to make unsubstantiated claims about it being easy to prove that morality is objective.
What 'we' can clearly see here is 'confirmation bias' when one is 'currently' believing some thing is true, which then makes the belief even more stronger, and thus more more 'confirmation' is 'seen', with 'circular reasoning' stuck, and revolving, within this one's 'belief and confirmation system and cycle'Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:30 pm Fine. Keep pretending you have the goods. No one's fooled.
For example this one 'currently' believes that I have absolutely nothing here, so 'this' is what this one will keep 'seeing', only.
What you are doing here is just making up things, which you believe, and hope, will back up and support what you 'currently' believe is true here.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:30 pm And I've explained 'a million times' why there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective. It's not an unsubstantiated claim.
Also, because of your 'current' beliefs here you are not open to understanding how there is, in fact, an actual moral fact, and thus why you keep missing why there is a moral fact.
Once more, for you, when you demand, of me, you will not get, from me.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:30 pm Yours is the burden of proof. Choose any moral assertion you like - 'murder is morally wrong' (dick-for-brains' go-to), or 'humans killing humans is morally wrong' (VA's go-to), or 'abortion is morally wrong' or 'eating animals is not morally wrong', and so on - and show why it asserts a moral fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion.
To me, noone so-called 'wins' 'the argument'. Arguments are spoken or written in a 'sound and valid' form, or not. And, when a sound and valid argument is presented, then this is a fact, which obviously could not be refuted by anyone.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:30 pm Do that, and you'll have won the argument. VA and moron sidekick dick-for-brains can't do it. So you'll be their new hero.
Also, the way that you and others are 'looking at' things here and presenting your so-called 'arguments' here is exactly why things, which are being discussed here, had not been resolved for hundreds of years, if not thousands of years.