S

The fact that I'm presently sitting here has already happened? No. That I'm presently sitting here is happening now, in the present. The present is no...

Right, I should instead throw the logic rule book out of the window and embrace your contradictory position.

Okay, but why?

Indeed, gratuitous assertions won't do. That's why I provided a logical demonstration earlier. It's a fact that I'm presently sitting here on my sofa....

Ah, like your contradictory position on what a fact is?

:grin:

Ah, so you can fathom logic on at least a basic level. You should seek to develop this skill.

Oh god, please don't spurt out disjointed comments directed at no one in particular about "thought/belief". Have you no filter? You know, I think that...

"...taken out of context and misinterpreted". There, I fixed that for you. You're welcome!

Don't you just love those two? They stand out amongst the crowd, at least for me.

No, I'm not conflating truth and belief. So the astute reader will do no such thing. And besides, what would you know about the astute reader? Here's ...

Maybe "reducible to" is the wrong way of putting it. We can and do reason about our moral feelings, after all. But I think that the emotive element is...

Going back over our discussion, this one little comment from you has been bugging me. Do you really not see what's so funny about the following? That ...

Agreed. I think that, to end up somewhere meaningful, and to avoid the kind of the consequences that you get with Moliere's error theory or Hanover's ...

I would swap the talk of belief, which is what creativesoul introduced, for what I've been talking about from the start: moral judgement.

I don't really have a view, except in relation to a particular interpretation and a particular method, and with a particular end in mind. I think I've...

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. There was a point, in a practical sense, when we were alive. But there isn't in the scenario, because we...

Yes you do, and it's selfexplanatory. Poppycock. You know the meaning of "there" and you know the meaning of "is" and you know the meaning of "there i...

No it's not though! No one would, obviously. No one exists in the scenario. But that doesn't matter, because the question is beside the point to begin...

:rofl: Okay, you win first place for the most inventive disagreement. Philosophy people crack me up sometimes. Well, I agree with the science, but not...

Okay, fine by me. I'm not that bothered about this supposed paradox, if you can even call it that. It's easily resolved, because there are two differe...

Firstly, I didn't even use those words. Secondly, I don't believe that you didn't understand what I meant. And thirdly, even if you didn't understand ...

Depends on the interpretation and the method. :roll: Be clearer.

Of course he is. You're no match for me. :sparkle:

I will, but first, how much are you going to pay me for being your tutor? You're not asking me a question which you can't learn the answer to yourself...

See, this is why you should learn the basics first. You don't need me for that.

Pah! You've got some nerve. He asks me a question, then when I answer it, he tells me to move on! :lol: That's what truth-apt means. Yes, it can. And ...

Predictable. Yes, I do, in the sense I think is the best way forward for ethics, which is the moral relativism sense. I already told you that I think ...

Jesus Christ. "X is immoral relative to A" is true if X is immoral relative to A, and false otherwise. But that's obvious.

No, of course I'm not.

So why the heck aren't you addressing the answer I already gave? Moral statements like that are truth-apt. Interpreted as per moral objectivism, they'...

Well, actually you're not even wrong. The statement is too ambiguous for a moral relativist to comment on it productively. Obviously there is an "X is...

:rofl: A dead end?

Are you trying to be funny? It is an inappropriate question, so no. Clarify first, then we take it from there.

I don't know what those reasons are, and I'm not going to look through this discussion to find them, but I will say that I think that rejecting that d...

:grin::up:

This is silly. Not everyone interprets this stuff the way that you do. Not everyone is of the same meta-ethical position as you. So you're a moral uni...

Aren't you reading what I'm saying about "X is immoral" for the position of moral relativism? The claim needs to be clarified, otherwise I'm not sayin...

What is your problem? Someone says "X is wrong". Okay. Under subjective moral relativism, that's false or at least unwarranted if interpreted as per m...

:rofl: I accept that the cup is blue. I see that it is blue, and even if I did not, it could be determined scientifically. There is sufficient evidenc...

Indeed, so what? I have no problem with that. I have a problem when someone suggests that there's an objective correct or incorrect, because I don't s...

But a moral relativist has to ask that question. They do not accept a simple, absolute "wrong", as you seem to indicate. Only a relative "wrong". So y...

In what sense?

I find this quite amusing. Does anyone else? Or is it just me? Okay, I'll bite, if you insist. Although there's only so much of you I can take before ...

Yes. Nevertheless, it seemed fitting, and it has the upshot of catching your attention. Yes, funnily enough, this isn't the first I've heard of the ar...

None of that follows from moral relativism. You either don't understand the basics of moral relativism, or you're not very good at logic, or both. You...

Sort of, but I see a problem with this part, and I disagree with it. I think that what you're saying could be simplified. You bring up a hypothetical ...

The "That's not an argument!" fallacy Someone presents an argument. The argument is complex, and not explicitly presented in its entirety. I'm not int...

:rofl:

Lol, you just don't get it, despite my explanation, which I think was very clear. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance.