Bartricks

Eh? No, the judgement is about something featuring as the object of one of Helen's attitudes - a valuing attitude.

Try "Put on your suit". Your modal suit. The modal suit with the quantification in the buttonhole.

No. I won't try that. I'll stick to the original. Much thankings.

Er, yes I did. Was it a whole hemisphere you lost?

Nothing ironic there. er, I said the truth condition of the judgement that Helen values X, is a valuing attitude of Helen's. That's true. Obviously tr...

No, not a clue what you're talking about. The truth-maker of a judgement such as "Helen values X" is a valuing attitude in Helen. The truth-maker of a...

You're just asserting the truth of views that my argument refutes, or else views that are not incompatible with its conclusion. For example, yes, I ag...

Note too, 'evaluating' is not the same as 'valuing'. To evaluate is to make a judgement. That's not what I take valuing to involve. We regularly judge...

yes. Their valuing is not a moral valuing. Only reason can do those.

Why would I try and prove you wrong? I agree. If you value your car, it is not necessarily morally valuable. I agree. That's my view. My view is our v...

Your example not good. I improve. Imagine three legged goat at market. Others do not buy goat, for it has three legs not four. But you know that this ...

And you really think I'm going to lift a single finger to cite a source for you? You'd go off in a huff or just change the subject the moment I did. T...

You think B is stronger??? Seriously?!? Right. Well, that's confirmed my thesis about what you are.

I have not made a single quoting error or exaggeration for rhetorical effect. Typos, yes. But what you did wasn't a typo, was it!?

Baby steps Isaac. If. Morality. Requires a spaghetti monster. And it doesn't. It really doesn't. It doesn't. Okay. It doesn't. But 'if' it did - as pr...

Because if premise 1 is true, there would be good evidence for one. As premise 2a is well supported. You don't understand arguments, do you?

Why, oh why, are you talking about Elizabeth Anscombe? What introductory book on ethics by her are you talking about? She didn't write one. She wrote ...

I repeat my accusation! I tattoo it on my forehead. I have scrawled it in my own excrement on the wall. I am shouting it loudly at the screen. You. Ca...

Er, no. That premise is TRUE. You seem to have trouble understanding sentences. It does not say "for something to be morally valuable is for ME to be ...

Er, no. You don't seem to understand the English language. Which of those two arguments is stronger. Say now. They are both unsound. Which is stronger...

I didn't say 'all'. Quote me. Come on. Find a quote where I say 'all'. Let's see if you understand language as well as you do arguments.

so why do you reject spaghetti monsterism about morality?

of those two hackeyed arguments argument a is stronger. But both are incredibly weak due to the gross implausibility of 1. So a total idiot would reje...

You're just pronouncing. How about addressing the argument of this thread? You are not a god - your words do not determine what's true. The argument I...

Yes. You. Do. Which premise? Spell it out. But in my words, not yours. Paste the premise and then tell me how anything I've said contradicts it.

That makes no sense at all. No I haven't. Which premise are you talking about? Again, you really, really, really don't understand arguments.

Yes. Take any metaethical theory - so any theory about what morality is - and it can be applied to Reason. And yes, you try and figure out which one i...

Er, yes. It establishes that not all value is moral value. Do you actually understand arguments at all? I mean, you've thrown the word 'quantification...

They are both good examples of prominent thinkers who are both atheist (certainly in Nietzsche's case, and almost certainly in Hobbes's) and divine co...

I do not understand your chicken/pebble analogy.

No, your rewording is wrong and far from improving on mine, it makes the premise into a tautology. My argument is fine as it is, you just don't unders...

Okaay. Whatever!

I'm not providing references - this is the internet!! Just look them up if you don't believe me. I mean, Nietzsche is probably the most famous atheist...

That is sooo not my position! Just barmy.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Whatever theory of Reason is correct, that remains true. That is, whatever Reason is you still h...

It is not the one making a claim who has the burden of proof - that's only something those who get all their information from youtube videos think. No...

Are you Pontius Pilate now? Jesus didn't answer, but I will. It is whatever Reason sincerely asserts to be the case. But I thought you a) didn't care ...

yes, it is sound. So its conclusion is true. As for it having no practical implications - well you are incredibly bad at discerning implications so yo...

not sure I follow you. But I don't think there's any particular thing a subject must value. But even if there were, that would not make that value a m...

the first premise says 'if' my valuings are morally values (so not 'they are' but 'if') then if I value something necessarily it will be morally valua...

'If'. It said 'if'. If you look up if, you will find out that you have completely and utterly misunderstood my simple, valid and sound argument.

If my values and moral values are synonymous - that is, if my valuings are moral values - then yes, what I value is necessarily moral. Just as if gold...

More bad advice. Anything else Jesus said that you want me to refute?

And there we go, focussing on me and not the argument! That's actually what I recommend - attack me, not the argument. I mean you tried the latter and...

Nausea and megalomania - you're in a bad way. You think if you say things they're thereby made true - so that's the megalomania. And speaking to me ma...

Which premise says that all value is moral value? None of them. (And for the sake of EricH - who has trouble with this sort of thing - 'none of them' ...

Strange how? And how on earth am I confused? I am literally the only one who is not confused. This is the dementia ward for the philosophically touche...

Haha, I was never off track!! Your criticism doesn't work. Funny. You think you've got me on the ropes. You really, really haven't.

Yes. You do realize your open question challenge has failed, right? You haven't pressed the Euthyphro, but made instead a completely different critici...

no I think superman rigidly designates Clark Kent. I just thought I ought to mention that I think reason exists in all possible worlds.