S

Moral relativists. And why "so-called"? There's nothing inappropriate about that name. It's not interesting and has already been answered. That's the ...

That has got to be one of the worst conversations I have ever read in my life. Two people going on an irrelevant and badly written tangent.

In your previous discussions. You're welcome to review your own past discussions and locate my criticism, but I'm not willing to do that for you, nor ...

They are merely repetitions of earlier arguments of yours likewise shown to be faulty elsewhere. If you have nothing new to add, then be quiet.

No, you haven't reasonably justified the entirely assumed necessity of a first cause. Even if you show that something always existed, that doesn't sho...

Don't assume that it is. And stop repeating yourself. You must not know what that means, or you're being illogical by saying something akin to that a ...

Because they mean different things. If I were to say that, "I'm going home", and, "I'm going fishing", are equivalent, then I'd be talking rubbish. No...

No they're not. You aren't justified in suggesting that there's a first cause. That's an act of faith.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about. No it doesn't. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Even if he has, he hasn't been refuted by you. That would be a delusion. I know you would rather attack a straw man. That is perfectly clear.

My understanding of Hume was that he was talking about reason in a strict sense, not just what seems to make sense on the surface. If we go by the lat...

Ah! Trying to kill me with kindness! :scream:

Awesome! Do you think it helps you a lot in philosophy and philosophical discussions, like you've gained an insight which others without your qualific...

Goo luck wi that, mi wee laddie!

I see a different problem there. It's not so much that he hasn't provided support, although you're right about that. There's very clearly a pattern wi...

So this, for example, is a semantic disagreement between us which I don't think you've properly dealt with. You're not interested in any problems I se...

I can't quite work out whether you're massively backtracking or you're just being extremely unclear.

Your bafflement must be because you misunderstand Hume's point. He wasn't an idiot, and nor is anyone arguing his point here. Of course he knew what a...

Sigh. More work. Great. I don't want you to repeat yourself. It is the parts which we've already explored up until I think you've encountered an obsta...

Off putting? A very poor choice of words, more like, if you didn't mean it in the logical sense. You're on a philosophy forum. Think before you speak....

Why are you judging that it would be fruitless? If it is not akin to religious faith, then why won't you elaborate where appropriate and attempt to me...

I don't see that as reflective of a productive, cooperative, philosophical attitude. I see that as shutting down philosophical discussion and demonstr...

I don't recall deliberately ignoring several of your replies, as you have done to me, which is, in my judgement, a greater injustice than name-calling...

The rest of you aren't Narcissus. I'm stuck here until I turn into a flower.

And if you're interested in furthering this meta-ethical discussion at some point, then let me know.

Yes, fine. But it's very annoying that you refuse to cooperate and are adamant about talking about what you want to talk about, in spite of my objecti...

You do not need to explain to me what ethics is about, nor do you need to be doing ethics. That is not helping at all. My objection is that that is of...

That should clear things up a bit. Only the latter is relevant. The question of how best to live is a question in normative ethics, so it should not b...

Questions of what "should be" are not even on the set agenda here. Nor are questions such as whether moral relativism is bad ("exploitative", "selfish...

Beat 'em over the head with logic and dry wit. They might never sense, but it feels good to beat people over the head.

Okay, thunks.

Best criticism I've seen so far.

Billy, Bob, Sue, Shirley (I never liked her), Johnathan, Wendy, Christopher (he always puts too much sugar in my coffee), Mark, James, Carl, Sandy (sh...

:snicker:

No u!

No! Don't go. You're one of the few people who talks real sense around here. It is reassuring. But at the same time, I completely understand the feeli...

Yes, you've already made it crystal clear to everyone that you do not identify as either. Congrats.

Such as all of the religious nonsense. All of it.

Forget your logic. He simply does NOT like BEING CALLED an ATHEIST. Or a THEIST. It TRIGGERS him. AND DON'T ACCUSE HIM OF SHOUTING!!! HE'S JUST EMPHAS...

He said that it follows. That is logical terminology. Surely he recognises that and knows that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, yet he ...

And I do, too. It shows that you do not understand logical validity. And this exact same example of yours has been previously identified as erroneous ...

It did seem like déjà vu. Like I'd made that exact joke before. Maybe he had made a previous attempt. Or maybe it was fate! It's surely a sign of God!...

A conversation I had just now by private message. :lol:

Or you could tape it to a tennis ball. @"Baden", Bart Simpson wisdom.

I don't do storytime, full stop. You're as bad as them in some respects. But yes, I get the analogy you make and agree with it. They explain the bad a...

That sounds like madness as put by a romantic poet. True madness isn't quite reflected in your pretty poetry. What's to respect about it? It is somewh...

The former is not absurd. It is the result of a wealth of scientific evidence. The latter is religious mumbo-jumbo. No, it isn't a choice for me. I ca...

You're joking, right? Bodies do not fall to the ground because we have faith that they must. That's absurd. Haha! You're funny. I could've sworn I had...

How's the search going? Nothing yet? That's what I thought. But keep searching. Maybe if you search hard enough you'll deceive yourself into thinking ...

"Under this paradigm...". And there, ladies and gentleman, lies the inherent weakness. Also, what's worthy or not is obviously a matter of subjective ...