Bartricks

I don't see how you're responding to my point. In order for something to be an imposition, there needs to be someone who is imposed upon. There is in ...

It's a theory about what's needed for morality to exist. It is no different in this respect from a theory about what's needed for a mushroom soup to e...

Well, there is someone who is imposed upon if you procreate - the person you created! There isn't if you don't. There is if you do. I said that when i...

For something to be an imposition, there needs to be someone who has been imposed upon, yes?

So you agree that hypothetical consent counts for nothing when it comes to the morality of procreation? The fact that if we create Tony, Tony will be ...

No, those are faults you have, not me. I've earned the right to consider myself good at arguing. You haven't and you've just decided - and this expres...

No, I'm really good at it. I do it for a living. No, I think I am good at something I have documentary evidence I am good at. Anyway, all you have to ...

So you agree that the fact most people would give their retrospective consent to be born, does not in itself do anything at all to imply that procreat...

So to my question in the OP your answer is 'yes'?

Eh? Look, I can't do your working for you - what are you saying?

But not every PhD in philosophy knows the squiggle squoggle languages. Me, for instance. To get a PhD in philosophy from a top university you need to ...

What was your point in respect of gifts? Do gifts constitute a counterexample to one of my conditions?

Anyone can make noise, but you have to be able to read music to make tunes. That's why the Beatles failed at it so spectacularly.

Well that's 1.5 seconds I won't be getting back. Oh, now you've added more.

1 is false. You're mistaking being able to formalize an argument with being good at arguing. That's like mistaking being unable to speak Italian with ...

There's no problem there - they come from a mind. And they do exist - the reason (the faculty of resaon) of virtually everyone tells them that there a...

You are just a lot of hot air. The original argument is patently obviously valid. Then, at tedious length, I outlined three syllogisms that get me to ...

This 'criticism' is one that can be made of any analysis of morality. For instance, let's say that you believe (insanely) that moral norms emanate fro...

But you are adding an additional premise, namely that there is only one mind. Adding that premise would not challenge the conclusion that divine comma...

I just made an argument directly relevant to the topic of the thread. Which is more than the rest of you have done. All you've done is made it about m...

You are just a Bartricks baiter - you have contributed nothing - nothing - philosphical to this thread. All you do is goad. It's a little pet project ...

How so? Do you have anything philosophical to contribute or are you too just interested in Bartricks baiting?

Stop Bartricks baiting and argue something. You don't have to read this thread. You can start your own or contribute to another and regurgitate half u...

No, that's extremely controversial. But it follows from my premises. It is uncontroversial that the argument I made is deductively valid, as anyone wh...

That people here will dispute it - or will dispute it when I assert it - is not evidence of controversy. Among philosophers there is none. Moral imper...

Skeptical are we? How would my telling you those things do anything to reduce your skepticism? Anyone could just make up such answers. Here's a more r...

No, the word 'reason' is ambiguous and can refer to a) normative reasons (you have reason to eat healthily) b) causes or explanations of things (expla...

One at a time. That doesn't make sense as a response to "Moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason". Do you mean that moral imperatives are imperati...

Argue something Banno, SEE. That stands for Stanford Encyclopedia Educated.

No, it is valid. As you would know if you knew how to argue properly and hadn't just done a little undergrad course on logic. And no, you can only que...

Haha, you really don't know your stuff. Undergrad are we? The first argument is obviously deductively valid. I laid it out as a series of syllogisms j...

What's next is the sinking feeling that you are massively out of your depth followed by humiliation and an about turn in which you reject my case 'bec...

no, answer the question. I want to know the level of arrogantium ignorantium thickium I am dealing with. Is that argument form valid?

You don't sound like someone who knows what they are talking about. Do you agree that this is deductively valid: 1. If p, then q 2. p 3. Therefore q

By 4 the game is up. That is, once it is established that Reason is a person, then divine command theory is true (for Reason would be a god). But if y...

Tell me what it means, logic virgin.

It's deductively valid. It has already been formulated. If you don't know that it is deductively valid it's because you don't know what that means.

You mean a deductively valid argument that responds directly to the op? Go away Banno and regurgitate half understood Stanford pages to others.

It is deductively valid. It'd be stupid not to notice.

That's semantics - what you're calling a 'pattern' is just 'the self'. Or you mean it literally, in which case it seems you are making a category erro...

Do you think that convicted criminals should be released as there is no persisting self for us to punish and so, in effect, the person in prison is no...

Yes, but that's just a convoluted way of saying that you're me and I'm you. He can't just say "You're me and I'm you" because then everyone would know...

He says I am though, right? If we're all one, then I'm you and you're me. There. Doesn't that refute it? 1. If Katsick's view is true, then I am you a...

So I am you?

My view is expressed in the conclusion of the argument I gave above As that argument is deductively valid it will, if sound, refute all other views ab...

Why not? Individual and collectivist subjectivists about morality think Hitler did nothing wrong (if they have any coherent thoughts at all). That's o...

Why did you put the word 'ontologically' in there? Er, what are you on about? The premise is talking about the 'imperatives' of reason. You have just ...

Refute the argument or go and be confused elsewhere. And this was not a good talk. It was unpleasant. Very.

Refute the argument. The one that shows you don't believe in God and don't understand God.

Refute the argument. Atheist.