Bartricks

I think the analogy works well - I mean, it is barely an analogy at all - but I can see why you don't like it. I have provided deductively valid argum...

Detective Janus: You are not understanding me. When I kill someone, it isn't Janet. And when others down at the office kill people, they're not Janet ...

Aw, but I like my analogy. I would like to continue with it a little longer, if it is all the same to you. Detective Janus: I am not asking who killed...

To continue my analogy: You "but what use is that? How do we know who it was?" Me "well, aren't we interested in what happened to Janet? And now we've...

The argument - the argument - tells us that moral values are the values of a subject, a mind, who is not one of us. And she exists because moral value...

I am not equivocating. It is clear what I mean by 'subject' - a mind, a subject of experiences. After all, I defined 'objective' as meaning 'exists ou...

I mean, suggesting that the alternatives are limited to one of us or God is a false dichotomy if ever I saw one.

I do not see which premise you are seeking to challenge. When we say 'society values p' we either mean that the majority of the subjects constituting ...

'God', on normal usage, is the name of a very particular kind of being. I did not mention 'God' so why are you? God is not mentioned in the premises o...

You also seem to ignore entirely the second leg of the argument - the leg that establishes that moral values are not composed of my valuings or your v...

I still don't know which premise you are denying. And when you say I equivocate, where do I do so? The word 'value' means the same throughout. If you ...

Note too that existing 'independently' of something is not the same as existing 'outside' of it. For instance, a second storey cannot exist independen...

Where? You need to deny a premise, so which one? For your convenience, here's the first leg of the case: 1. For something to be morally valuable is fo...

You also say that my argument is confused. Oh is it? No, it isn't - it is deductively valid (so, its conclusion is true if its premises are). So you n...

Just to add - but again, not for dispute - 'objective', as I am using the term, is not synonymous with 'external'. 'Objective', as I am using it, mean...

No, I have said how I am using the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' in the opening post. Precisely because others use them in haphazard and unclear ...

Or is it nap nap time?

yes, shall we make a big list of things that people can be and arguments can't?

And arguments can't be stupid. People can be, however. Really, really stupid in some cases.

You're confused is what you are. Read. The. Opening. Post. And do the other things. And realize that you don't know what you think you know.

Yes it is. Read the opening post. Or don't. Then take a course in logic. Then take a course in ethics. Then realize you're wrong about virtually every...

Incorrect again. And like I say, not worth debating with. Tara.

Steve's act of rape is morally bad regardless of Steve's attitudes towards it. You think that's false. Fine, but now you're not worth debating with - ...

So if Steve rapes Jane and we subsequently find out that Steve valued raping Jane, then we have found out that Steve did nothing wrong. Far from it - ...

Good - so you think that if I value raping someone, then necessarily it is morally good for me to rape them. That is obviously false. If I value rapin...

First, take a course in logic. Then, once you've done that, say which of my premises - MY premises, as written by me, not you - you disagree with. The...

Oh my word, the less they know the less they know it. First, there is no 'to me' at the end of my premise, so stop putting it in. Address MY premise, ...

Er, no, you're really not understanding this. There's only so much I can do. If - if - moral values are made of my valuings, then if I value something...

So, once again, and for the last time, which premise are you disputing?

Well as the argument demonstrates, moral values are not the valuings of you or I, but of another subject (and the 'of' in that sentence denotes not th...

LIke I say, you're confusing descriptions with prescriptions. Moral rules, if there are any, are prescriptions. Now, can a machine issue a prescriptio...

So, rather than rewriting my premises or assuming I've incorrectly written them, just address them. That is, try to take issue with one. Again, with o...

No one. Just 'morally valuable'. if I value something, then it is valuable to me, yes? But if something is morally valuable then it is valuable irresp...

I don't think you know what a non sequitur is. And no, nothing needs to be changed. The argument was deductively valid and both premises - as I wrote ...

that's question begging - I think you demonstrably don't. Look, if other things are equal - so we equalize all other properties, such as psychological...

the point, which you seem to be having such a hard time grasping, is that the two are not morally equivalent as any morally sensitive personal recogni...

I do not follow you. I have not invented anything, I have just followed an argument to its logical conclusion. Moral values are valuings (what else co...

well, top marks for not bothering to address anything I actually argued.

So, again, two no-nothings say the same thing and suddenly we have verification and knowledge, yes? Only, no, no, no.

So, basically, long story short, a big bunch of no-nothings can create knowledge by writing a Wikipedia page, yes?

Plus, I thought you didn't value what experts think - why are you suddenly into consensuses?

You realize there's a consensus that verificationism is false?

Does the random non-expert's cancer diagnosis verify the other random non-expert's cancer diagnosis? If not, why not?

I am unclear what your point is. The word 'objective' is ambiguous - it can mean 'goal', it can mean 'impartial' and it can mean 'exists outside of su...

Well, that's nice for you - but your random and unjustified assertions do not determine what's true in this area. Not unless you're an expert, that is...

You're confusing verifiability with truth and justification. To be justified in a belief is for there to be normative reason for you to believe what y...

Again, you're not comparing like with like. Moral norms are prescriptions. That's just what a norm is. Well, it's more of a rag bag than that. Moral p...

No, that was my original argument for thinking that moral values, though the valuings of a subject, are not my valuings. There's nothing incoherent ab...

If a random stranger with no expertise in medicine says that my mole is cancerous, and then another random strange with no expertise in medicine says ...

You don't have to verify that a belief is knowledge before it qualifies as knowledge. After all, if you did you'd get a regress.