Michael

They referenced United States v. Powell, 1871: Also they did look up the dictionary definitions. It starts on page 103. Then there's this:

Right, so you're arguing for moral relativism. I'm okay with that.

Because you brought up rules. I'm happy to do away with them. So what does it mean for something to be wrong? How do we verify or falsify (or justify)...

So you say. But I say kicking puppies is not forbidden. That's me stating the rules. Presumably you will say that one of us is right and one of us is ...

The 14th Amendment doesn't say that only someone charged (let alone convicted) of insurrection is ineligible. It only says that someone who engaged in...

Your question is ambiguous. If I were to say that it is against the rules to move a pawn backwards in chess then I would justify my assertion by refer...

Ridicule as an attempt to deflect from your hypocrisy. Very transparent. I'll try to make this simple for you. You are claiming that the judges would ...

I said that guns kill, not that guns are killers. If I said that downing kills then would you interpret that as me saying that water is a killer?

I said that guns kill, not that guns are murderers. If I said that drowning kills then would you interpret that as me saying that water is a murderer?

Your argument here is: Premise 1. If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. Conclusion....

Yes, just as guns kill. It's not magic, it's common sense. The problem is that your position is nonsense.

Humans command by using words, just like humans kill by using a gun. And Trump influenced his cult by using his words.

The same is true of something like "electrons have no mass" and "electrons have mass". One of them is true and the true claim is the one that "corresp...

Trump recorded pressuring Wayne County canvassers not to certify 2020 vote More evidence of his direct involvement in an illegal scheme to defraud the...

Obviously.

I did comment here that I was unfairly equating "verify" and "justify" and so re-phrased my question to ask about justification and in his response he...

Yes, thanks for repeating the nonsense. The hypocrisy in your claim that the court saying things is an act of coercion but that Trump saying things ca...

Here is empirical evidence of you admitting that you're not even interested in justifying your position. A position that isn't justified is, by defini...

Me: What have the judges done to coerce the secretary? You: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot. If your response doesn't answer my qu...

They're not. They're central to metaethics. You're asserting that some type of ontological entity exists ("moral obligations") but won't justify your ...

You: People coerce others. Me: What have the judges done to coerce the secretary? You: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot. Make up yo...

And are we to be a realist or a nominalist about these things, mirroring the distinction between mathematical realism and mathematical nominalism?

And their orders are just words. Therefore, if their orders have coerced her then their words have coerced her, which according to you is impossible.

How? What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?

So what evidence – whether empirical or rational – supports your assertion that there are non physical things?

How do they do that? All they've done is printed words on a document. What does it mean for words to "coerce" another person? Seems like another word ...

I suppose I was unfairly equating "verified" with "justified". So rather than ask you how you would verify the claim that one ought not kick puppies I...

Rules require a rule-maker. Right, so as I said, moral realism is a dogma. It doesn't even try to justify its assertions.

The fear is in her head, not in the words written by the judges. So, again, by your own reasoning you cannot blame the court for the Secretary's decis...

Okay, so we're getting somewhere. Obligations are non-physical states of affairs. As it stands it then seems that a moral realist cannot be a physical...

And he finally admits that words can influence another's behaviour. You're welcome ladies and gentlemen.

But you just quoted yourself saying "demonstrably provable negative affects/effects stemming from not honoring one's voluntarily obligations(promises)...

So moral obligations are pragmatic suggestions? I ought not kick puppies because... they might bite me in retaliation? I can accept that. But I don't ...

Metaethics It is about far more than just "are moral propositions truth-apt and if so are any true?"

Can you link to the post in question? I don't recall an argument, only ever assertions.

Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics I believe that the above is false. I am not a mathematical realist, but I still believe in mathematical tru...

You didn't. You just asserted it and threw out vague suggestions to "check the codes of behaviour" without explaining where to find these codes of beh...

I'm trying to show you that the concept of something being forbidden only makes sense in the context of some relevant authority telling you to not do ...

Where do I find them?

How do I verify or falsify the claim that I ought not kick puppies?

A search for posts by you containing the word "forbidden" for the past year brings up five results, all of which only assert that something is forbidd...

I don't have a choice of method. I'm asking you how to do it. Are you going to answer?

Fourth. Here, here, and here were the earlier comments.

If by this you just mean that someone or something bigger and stronger than me has threatened to punish me if I kick puppies then I understand what yo...

They how would you put it? You're arguing that something is the case but seem unwilling to make sense of it.

Well, to be pedantic they're ordering her not to add him to the ballot, but yes. But so what? Orders are just words and you're a free speech absolutis...

The bits in bold are the bits I'm trying to make sense of. Are they physical states-of-affairs?

That if we use your logic then a) you cannot accuse the court of removing Trump from the ballot and b) if Trump is removed from the ballot then it isn...

So I ask again, for the zillionth time: how do I verify or falsify the claim that we ought not kick puppies?

What is the what is going on with respect to the obligation to not kick puppies? Are obligations physical objects? Are obligations physical events? Ar...