S

What if you inform someone, but they don't understand? That way, is it not possible that they could still be trying? Or, with your second premise, do ...

To clarify, my view about whether there's a fact of the matter with regards to morality is no different in logical form to my view about whether there...

I followed your link, but I didn't find any explanation for why you think it's natural there. Just a few assertions that it's natural, and few referen...

Okay, so you accept that they're truth-functional (that's a useful term, I'll have to remember that one). That's a start. Now, why say "just" whatever...

They're distinct. If you don't know the distinction, look it up.

Okay, a thread has a life of its own. I want to talk about goldfish. Let's all talk about goldfish now, instead of the original topic or whatever Bann...

Of course it's not nonsense on its own terms. It's only so as a consequence of you begging the question once again. You simply assume your own underst...

Indeed you are, if "ahead of" means "behind", which it may well do in your topsy turvy world.

What are you referring to as the meaning, then? The information? But that's already there. What do you mean by "transmission"? Whether there's a perso...

Okay. But it's also true that there were unconceived objects before beings like us even existed. That's not a hypothetical scenario. Under your model ...

What I would like is for you to stay on topic. But I suppose that that's asking too much of you?

No, please just clarify what you meant. That's all that I was after. I don't need to answer your question for that.

They're two different things. You started a discussion on one of them, then switched to the other. Why? Because your argument isn't faring too well? O...

Let's put it this way: I am sceptical. Now, if you think that you can logically demonstrate otherwise, then please give it a go.

No, you missed it. We both read what Terrapin Station said. The only difference is that I understood it. I'm confident in my ability to go over it wit...

That's the point of normative ethics. This discussion is about meta-ethics. You should know, you created it.

Well, I'm a moral subjectivist, but as I explained earlier, you'd be parsing it wrong with me if you did so like that, because for me it's not so much...

Indeed. We see eye to eye yet again.

Yeah, that's what it boils down to. Might as well just cut to the chase instead of deliberately concealing it with vague terminology. The moral feelin...

Pretty much spot on, again.

I recognise the distinction between an "is" statement and an "ought" statement. The meanings are not identical. Nor does the one logically imply the o...

Are you serious? To my knowledge, no one has demanded evidence that kicking puppies is wrong. That's far too simplistic or too uncharitable an interpr...

Your conclusion is simply about kicking puppies and stuff like that being not good. Yes? Well, that doesn't do anything for all of us who agree that i...

Okay. But you realise that that's a very small target? It won't apply to most of us here. I for one am neither a moral nihilist nor a sicko. Kicking p...

Do you realise that only a moral nihilist and sickos would deny that conclusion, and for two very different reasons. I don't recall you mentioning mor...

I'm aware that our positions are quite similar, but that he may well be a noncognitivist, as you suggest. I however am not. I'm familiar with the emot...

It's misleading to refer to such statements as statements of preference, or worse, statements of mere preference. They're moral statements, or stateme...

I for one don't agree with that. That's the position known as moral universalism. I don't agree with that, since in some cases I think that that would...

Not all of them deny that. There are both cognitivist (moral statements are truth-apt) and non-cognitivist (moral statements aren't truth-apt) subject...

Are you trying to be funny? I made the point that moral statements include statements in a moral context about what we ought or ought not do, as well ...

Wow. Talk about taking what I said out of context.

Sure. I followed your discussion with Michael to some extent, and I more or less agreed with him. Then came the part where you said that a moral state...

It never stood to begin with.

Okay. First of all, I can see why the statement might appear on the surface to be contradictory: conceived-unconceived. But I don't think that it actu...

I am both willing and interested to go over this, in our own words, in a step-by-step manner. But you say so much and go too fast for me. Here's what ...

Huh? Sorry, but you've lost me again. I'm not sure what you want. Do you want me to clarify how I would interpret the meaning of that? Yes, I understa...

Less words would have been better, and your own words, and taking one thing at a time, instead of paragraph after paragraph of text. Slow down, please...

That's a really bad reply. It doesn't even try to explain anything or take onboard what I said in reply to you the first time you said that. That's mo...

Oh dear. We fundamentally disagree on so much. I predicted from the very beginning that I would keep discovering this from just one or two sentences i...

Okay, how can I help you without committing what I consider to be a category error? If I can't, then we're stuck, aren't we? I'm finding it difficult....

Um, no. Not quite. In fact, that's a pretty absurd comparison. He simply kicked a rock, whereas I presented a logical argument in the form of a reduct...

Okay, but then that's kind of trivial, at least in a sense, isn't it? Because they're not engaging the argument, or rather the claim, on its own terms...

What the heck does that mean? And why? :chin: No, I don't think so. It doesn't disappear, it's just explained. Why would it disappear? And what do you...

When and for what reason, though? That's very important. You're suggesting that that indicates that I didn't question myself enough, but there are a m...

This looks like the same kind of error that creativesoul kept reverting to. He kept reverting to an interpretation that is not accepted under moral re...

Indeed. It's the same logical form in both cases. That he says that there's no contradiction with the one, but there is with the other, means that he ...

My point was that your analogy was inappropriate if it was meant to suggest a) that the two situations are judged in the same way, and b) that the two...

What? I don't understand why you think that it's natural, or rather, if you think that it's natural, why your analogy was with something obviously art...

Like what? What do you mean? Give an example. Rocks existed prior to our conceptions, but they don't seem relevant in this context. For what purpose? ...

I didn't mean in terms of absolutes, I meant in general, or in a specific respect. We can be reasonable or unreasonable in the sense I meant.