Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Right, so what was the exception to "that's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective."

An exception is _______?

....an opportunity to be a nit-picker.

Or demonstrate ability to handle exceptions.

[Skepdick]

By the way, the above is a way of saying, "I'll be forwarding a lot of argumentum ad populums."

It's a pledge to conformism.

That's a fallacy fallacy.

[Terrapin Station]

Right, so what was the exception to "that's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective."

An exception is _______?

....an opportunity to be a nit-picker.

Or demonstrate ability to handle exceptions.

I'd need to see an exception first, if you'd ever present one. I guess it's important that it remains a secret.

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, the above is a way of saying, "I'll be forwarding a lot of argumentum ad populums."

It's a pledge to conformism.

That's a fallacy fallacy.

That's a fallacy fallacy fallacy.

[Skepdick]

That's a fallacy fallacy fallacy.

That's a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy.

Ad infinitum... to Philosophical rock bottom.

[Skepdick]

I'd need to see an exception first, if you'd ever present one. I guess it's important that it remains a secret.

What is it that you are asking for, sunshine?

I said X is a general rule.

You disagreed. You are one of the exceptions.

You want me to show you to you?

[Terrapin Station]

I'd need to see an exception first, if you'd ever present one. I guess it's important that it remains a secret.

What is it that you are asking for, sunshine?

I said X is a general rule.

You disagreed. You are the exception.

You want me to show you to you?

I said "That's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective."

You said, "That's obviously not always true . . . I will except your exceptions."

So what's the exception to "That's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective"?

By the way, if you're into deferring to consensuses, I'll be happy to take a poll on the value of your contributions to the board if you'll abide by the outcome.

[Skepdick]

So what's the exception to "That's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective"?

YOU making the statement is the exception! Your disagreement an exception makes.

And since you decided to derail my point by nitpicking exceptions, then I decided to derail your derailment.

Is game theory 101. When playing with chronic non-reciprocators punish in excess.

By the way, if you're into deferring to consensuses, I'll be happy to take a poll on the value of your contributions to the board if you'll abide by the outcome.

You think consensus is self-reporting?

I am still waiting for all of you Philosophers who self-report to be "against moral facts" to suicide yourself.

Actions speak louder than words. That's mostly why I don't give a shit about anything you have to say - you performatively contradict yourself.

[Terrapin Station]

So what's the exception to "That's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective"?

YOU making the statement is the exception! Your disagreement an exception makes.

Say what? First, you think that I'm talking about a point in my comment? (in other words, you think that "That's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective" is somehow itself a statement of a point, and that in being a statement of a point, it's claiming that it's the point to everyone?)

By the way, if you're into deferring to consensuses, I'll be happy to take a poll on the value of your contributions to the board if you'll abide by the outcome.

You think consensus is self-reporting?

Self reporting??

I am still waiting for all of you people arguing "against moral facts" to suicide yourself.

Which just underscores that you don't even understand what we're saying. But keep arguing for sure.

[Skepdick]

Self reporting??

Well what sort of "poll" do you have in mind where people get to vote with their actions and not with their meaningless words?

Besides, even if you are all "in agreement" you keep insisting that your predispositions are non-causal so... How are you going to reify your "consensus"?

Philosophy is just an armchair circle-jerk.

Which just underscores that you don't even understand what we're saying. But keep arguing for sure.

I have probably said it a hundred times the activity of "arguing" is a total waste of time. So no, you'll never find me "arguing" - certainly not by the "rules" or "social norms" that constitute "arguing".

But the fact that you describe what I am doing as "arguing" is classic example of you NOT understanding what's going on here. It's not uncommon for Philosophers to not understand this point.

[Terrapin Station]

Well what sort of "poll" do you have in mind where people get to vote with their actions and not with their meaningless words?

How would members of a message board tell us/reach a consensus about how much they value someone's contributions via actions rather than words?

For one, do you think that actions can be the same thing as mental phenomena like valuing something?

And how do you believe that you can observe actions in the first place? In your view, all observables are verbal constructs, no? You don't believe that you're actually observing things that aren't mental, are you?

[Skepdick]

How would members of a message board tell us/reach a consensus about how much they value someone's contributions via actions rather than words?

That's entirely your problem, I imagine. That question doesn't concern me much. Especially since even if you do reach some "consensus" your collective pre-dispositions are non-causal (so say you) and so whatever you decide won't become my concern.

You all agree that I am "not a valuable contributor" and then we continue talking to each other. So we continue as before, but your collective objection has been noted (and ignored).

Or you'll kick me out thus proving my point about causal objective social norms. If you win I win, and if I lose I still win.

The game is rigged, the only move is not to play, but there's a great quote by George Bernard Shaw that sure fits... The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

For one, do you think that actions can be the same thing as mental phenomena like valuing something?

Did we not conclude yesterday that nothing is the same as anything else? "Sameness" is always a heuristic.

And how do you believe that you can observe actions in the first place? In your view, all observables are verbal constructs, no? You don't believe that you're actually observing things that aren't mental, are you?

That's not my view. That's only your uncharitable misunderstanding of my view.

[Terrapin Station]

That's entirely your problem, I imagine. That question doesn't concern me much. Especially since even if you do reach some "consensus" your collective pre-dispositions are non-causal (so say you) and so whatever you decide won't become my concern.

You all agree that I am "not a valuable contributor" and then we continue talking to each other. So we continue as before, but your collective objection has been noted (and ignored).

So what's the case is and isn't determined by consensus?

Did we not conclude yesterday that nothing is the same as anything else? "Sameness" is always a heuristic.

Presumably it is and isn't on your view, no? Or do you want consistency on this but not some other things?

And how do you believe that you can observe actions in the first place? In your view, all observables are verbal constructs, no? You don't believe that you're actually observing things that aren't mental, are you?

That's not my view. That's only your uncharitable misunderstanding of my view.

So you're not opposed to objectivism a la a belief that you can accurately observe the natural world?

[Skepdick]

So what's the case is and isn't determined by consensus?

What do you think determination is?

Presumably it is and isn't on your view, no? Or do you want consistency on this but not some other things?

I don't particularly think consistency is a virtue or a value to be pursued.

It's a property of logical/mathematical systems. Sometimes it's desirable. Other times it's not.
Humans determine what properties they require from the logics/Mathematics they invent.

Frankly, I think it's utterly stupid to have a car that blows up every time the driver farts, yet the principle of explosion does exactly that in every consistency-seeking logic. I am perfectly happy with para-consistent (inconsistency tolerant) logic.

So you're not opposed to objectivism a la a belief that you can accurately observe the natural world?

I am opposed to stupid narratives such as the above.

How would you determine if your observations are "accurate"? Especially since it's a well-known fact that your visual system has explicitly evolved to misrepresent the world.

Vision evolved for survival not for "accurately perceiving the world". That's a philosophical project.

[Terrapin Station]

It's a property of logical/mathematical systems. Sometimes it's desirable. Other times it's not.
Humans determine what properties they require from the logics/Mathematics they invent.

What do you think determination is?

How would you determine if your observations are "accurate"? Especially since it's a well-known fact that your visual system has explicitly evolved to misrepresent the world.

How could you know this if you can't accurately observe eyes, optic nerves and the like?