What could make morality objective?

[Terrapin Station]

Holy crap you can't read.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

It says the answer in the post you're quoting: "because otherwise it doesn't follow from anything that a statistical norm implies a normative."

I am not talking about that.

I am talking about justification in general. From what does it follow that justification is necessary?

Justification is only necessary if, say, one wants to argue that something is the case, a la a fact implying a normative, where it's rather obvious that that doesn't follow at all.

Justification isn't necessary "in general."

[Terrapin Station]

Do you believe there is a world independent of persons first off?

I don't know.

What is a "world" independent of persons?

How would we figure out what it is?

[Skepdick]

How would we figure out what it is?

I don't know what you are asking!

What what does "it" mean, independent of persons?
What does "world" mean, independent of persons?

[Terrapin Station]

How would we figure out what it is?

I don't know what you are asking!

Well there's a surprise.

[Skepdick]

Justification is only necessary if, say, one wants to argue that something is the case.

So if one doesn't want to argue, then justification is not necessary?

Justification isn't necessary "in general."

Then why is it necessary in particular, Captain Logic?

That's invalid, and therefore unsound!

[Skepdick]

Well there's a surprise.

The irony of being surprised when it's perfectly normal is not lost on me.

Perhaps it's lost on you.

Since you don't understand that surprise is measure of new information.

[Terrapin Station]

Justification is only necessary if, say, one wants to argue that something is the case.

So if one doesn't to argue, then justification is not necessary?

(Noting that what you're quoting wasn't the full qualification . . .) No--why would it be?

Justification isn't necessary "in general."

Then why is it necessary in particular, Captain Logic?

I just gave you an example.

That's invalid, and therefore unsound!

No one stated an argument with premises and a conclusion a la something cognitive. You don't understand what arguments are, though, so this is expected.

[Skepdick]

No--why would it be?

OK! You are a sophist.

I don't want to argue about it.

I just gave you an example.

Obviously you gave me an example. I am not blind.

I am asking you to justify why justification is necessary in the context of logic.

Because "justification is necessary in particular" cannot be deduced from "justification is not necessary in general".

No one stated an argument with premises and a conclusion a la something cognitive.

You did make a proposition though! Are your statements not subject to logical scrutiny?

You don't understand what arguments are, though, so this is expected.

Do you think you understand understanding?

[Terrapin Station]

OK! You are a sophist.

The sophists got a bad rap. As if Plato didn't say a lot of nonsense. He was a great author in terms of his stylistic abilities, his clarity, etc., but he had mostly crap conclusions.

I am asking you to justify your example in the context of logic.

The example gave an adequate explanation already. If it's obvious that statistical norms don't imply normatives, why wouldn't we require a justification for a claim that statistical norms do imply normatives? For that matter, since when do you buy anything without some sort of justification? Your whole schtick is "asshat playing stupid" where you want everything justified ad infinitum.

You did make a proposition though!

I didn't make any claim about anything being true or false aside from people having a disposition if they do.

Re understanding, I already explained that to you. I'm not going to repeat it (to you).

[Skepdick]

The sophists got a bad rap. As if Plato didn't say a lot of nonsense. He was a great author in terms of his stylistic abilities, his clarity, etc., but he had mostly crap conclusions.

Sounds like you have some normative notion of "crapness" in your mind...

The example gave an adequate explanation already.

It is? By what normative standard for "adequacy".

If it's obvious that statistical norms don't imply normatives, why wouldn't we require a justification for a claim that statistical norms do imply normatives?

Because you said "Justification is not requires in general". By the soundness property in logic that implies justification is not required in particular either.

And yet you are insisting on it. That's special pleading.

For that matter, since when do you buy anything without some sort of justification? Your whole schtick is "asshat playing stupid" where you want everything justified ad infinitum.

That shows great misunderstanding of "my schtick" on your behalf. I am only hold you accountable to the schtick you've chosen for yourself.

I don't need justification for descriptive statements - anyone can say anything they want about the world. You can even say that the world doesn't exist. Look! I am saying it - nothing happens!

The only sort of things I demand justifications for is choices. Cost/benefit analysis on decisions. Expected returns should we choose to alter trajectory.

I didn't make any claim about anything being true or false aside from people having a disposition if they do.

You clearly stated "justification is needed". Are you now saying that's not true?

Re understanding, I already explained that to you. I'm not going to repeat it (to you).

So it happens that understanding recursion is a necessary condition for understanding understanding.

Something tells me you don't understand recursion.

[Terrapin Station]

Because you said "Justification is not requires in general". By the soundness property in logic that implies justification is not required in particular either.

First, I put "in general" in quotation marks. You asked about justification "in general." I wasn't saying anything about justification in general.

In a similar way, animals are not canines in general, are they? Can they be canines in particular?

Again, it feels like I'm explaining stuff to a retard.

[Skepdick]

First, I put "in general" in quotation marks. You asked about justification "in general." I wasn't saying anything about justification in general.

In general or in particular. I am asking you to justify your claim that justification is necessary.

In a similar way, animals are not canines in general, are they? Can they be canines in particular?

You seem confused about your own taxonomy.

In if in general canines are animals, then canines are animals in particular too.

Again, it feels like I'm explaining stuff to a retard.

You are explaining it to yourself, so...

[Terrapin Station]

In general or in particular. I am asking you to justify your claim that justification is necessary.

Justify asking me to justify my claim that justification is necessary.

In a similar way, animals are not canines in general, are they? Can they be canines in particular?

You seem confused about your own taxonomy.

if in general canines are animals, then canines are animals in particular too.

Yeah, that's what I wrote there, Einstein.

[Skepdick]

Justify asking me to justify my claim that justification is necessary.

Justification is your social norm, not mine.

Why are you prescribing it onto me?

Yeah, that's what I wrote there, Einstein.

Then why are you so confused by your own rules?

[Terrapin Station]

Justification is your social norm, not mine.

First, no it isn't. Second, I'm a society? Or are you saying something about respective societies we live in?

Why are you prescribing it onto me?

You asked me to justify something. Why?

Then why are you so confused by your own rules?

Aspie no likey sarcasm.