S

Then you are probably blind. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Brett has trouble with logical relevance. I group him with creativesoul and Metaphysi...

Sweet Jesus. You are very much back at square one, as if twenty pages of correcting errors in understanding has achieved nothing.

Good points.

You will do. Just you wait until I'm dictator.

@"Rank Amateur", I'm with him on that. It makes way more sense to me to interpret moral statements as stemming from moral feelings, and moral feelings...

I think we need to go back to the basics with anyone who makes a comment like that in this discussion: Do you understand the distinction between norma...

But you do understand why, really. The explanation is that other people are not as logical as we are. Yes! Tim Wood and Banno are perfect examples of ...

Clearly he has trouble making the right logical connections and keeping on point.

No, not arrogant. Logical. Don't make irrelevant personal remarks about my character. Yes, what morality is. That's a different issue to the issue you...

Completely irrelevant given the context. The context is about what morality is, not what morality is good for. Why is it that so many people in this d...

This is easily resolved in favour of the sceptic of moral absolutism, rather than the proponent of moral absolutism. One could just retract the strong...

Lock him up and throw away the key. :smile:

Either: it's the same answer. Not immoral in itself, only immoral in the sense of moral relativism. Moral relativism has a parallel in existential nih...

That's the key question, really. A lot of these objections can be solved simply by the objector learning about what moral relativism is.

Yes, but we should all be able to agree on that, and it completely misses the controversy, making no ground whatsoever towards resolving it, which is ...

That is a terrible argument which confuses normative ethics and meta-ethics. This error has been pointed out multiple times, and yet you still make it...

The irony is that this can be very jarring. I don't want a stupid smile and a thumbs up. I would rather you let loose and gave it to me straight. I'm ...

I couldn't resist. :lol: And yeah, I thought about honesty, freedom and comedy almost as soon as I saw the term "political correctness". These are thr...

I made a similar assessment of what he's doing. He's talking about cats in a discussion about horses. Yep. He's not thinking outside of the box. He ac...

An obvious false dichotomy.

No, the latter clearly isn't consistent with politeness as normally understood, as my example shows. It doesn't facilitate saying things which people ...

I'll answer that: because he's illogical and because his position is untenable.

You must not have properly read what you just quoted me saying. Look again. I said that it can be the case that not everything is relative, yet morali...

FGM is amoral except in the sense of moral relativism. So you either agree with me about moral relativism, or you're saying something false about FGM....

Exactly.

You would probably agree that the sea is the sky, so long as whoever said that said it in disagreement with me.

:rofl:

Cocaine?

Actually, in hindsight, I think I might have misinterpreted what he meant there. But if so, it was badly worded. Given the rest of his post, which I'v...

That's still missing the point. :eyes: It can be the case that not everything is relative, yet morality is.

Of course not. I'm not denying any outside influence whatsoever. I'm rejecting any suggestion that factors such as the prevalent religion in my societ...

Not thinking it through properly or lying to yourself? Which is it? There can be a big difference between insulting someone and just saying something ...

That's either obviously false or obviously irrelevant, although it isn't clear which, because you're playing on the ambiguity. But it's still lose-los...

No, we're still stuck at the very first hurdle. Namely, the question of why morality can't stem from the individual in the sense that I meant that, an...

The burger, when not being perceived, is like a burger, only one that is not being perceived. Then you ask me a silly question like, "But what does it...

I don't care. You haven't given me any reason to. You're getting way ahead of yourself. My advice would be to slow down, try to regain relevance in re...

No, that is far from a complete picture of what political correctness is. But anyway, your point is meaningless without your implicit assumptions abou...

That doesn't contradict anything that I've claimed. I don't think that engaging with you further is going to be productive. You probably have somethin...

Why would you think that repeating the problem helps to resolve it? I have narrowed down the problem to your first premise. Either try to defend it or...

Only if you think that they're brute facts. Do you? Otherwise the burden is on you and you should stop making excuses.

I'm not particularly interested in you simply throwing together an argument like that, even if valid. You begin with premises about society as if it i...

The first premise is obviously false, so the argument is unsound. This is child's play.

You can't make an "is" into an "ought" that is morally relevant without a hidden premise which needs to be justified, and which hasn't been justified,...

Yes, pain hurts and is undesirable. That's what you're saying there, I take it? That's trivial. Or are you going to do what a sophist would do, and ex...

You are being careless and jumping to conclusions. I know exactly what he said. And I know exactly what I'm doing. My point was that he is switching f...

That was my point, which you seem to have paradoxically both missed, and yet stolen. Of course it doesn't make sense and is a category error. He is sa...

Okay, so you're just talking about pain being bad in a sense that is not in itself morally relevant, in spite of the superficial appearance given the ...

That's not how the burden of proof works, and I asked you why not, alternatively: in accordance with my moral judgement, pain is bad as far as I'm con...

I don't see anything worth taking seriously in that. It is just dogmatism. You need to actually explain, as though speaking to a sceptic, why your rea...

Sorry, but I'm not interested in a bunch of bare assertions strung together like that, as though they're a real argument. I already addressed some of ...