There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

[Skepdick]

But that in no way amounts to a normative. There is no meaning attached to it, there is nothing prescribing anything to anyone, etc. in those shapes on paper in themselves. They're just marks on a particular sort of material.

This is also incoherent nonsense.

Lets suppose that there are no such things as normatives. not-N.

What is the logical implication of their absence? What does not-N imply?

(¬ N) ⇒ ???

How would this implication be different if N was "the case"?

N ⇒ ???

[Terrapin Station]

Why would you want to refer to a world without referrers?

I'm interested in what's the case.

You are confused as hell, mate.

How could you (a referrer) be interested in a referring to a world without referrers?

Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.

[Skepdick]

Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.

Non-sequitur.

How could any referrer be interested in a world without referrers?

[Terrapin Station]

Lets suppose that there are no such things as normatives. not-N.

What is the logical implication of their absence? What does not-N imply?

You mean if they didn't exist period?

Then there would be no normatives, no one would even think "I ought to x," etc.

Why wouldn't this be obvious?

It would be different than if there were normatives because then there are normatives, people might think, "I ought to x," etc.

[Terrapin Station]

Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.

Non-sequitur.

It wasn't an argument.

[Skepdick]

It wasn't an argument.

That's also a non-sequitur.

Your responses fail to address your interlocutor's questions.

What would you like for dinner? 67!

[Terrapin Station]

It wasn't an argument.

That's also a non-sequitur.

That also wasn't an argument.

[Skepdick]

It wasn't an argument.

That's also a non-sequitur.

That also wasn't an argument.

Non-sequiturs are not constrained to arguments.

It's non-sequitur within this interaction/dialogue.

[Terrapin Station]

Non-sequiturs are not constrained to arguments.

Yeah, they are. Fallacies are about argumentation.

[Skepdick]

Yeah, they are. Fallacies are about argumentation.

Non-sequiturs are not only fallacies.

They are also replies that don't follow the previous statement/question.

[Terrapin Station]

Yeah, they are. Fallacies are about argumentation.

Non-sequiturs are not only fallacies.

They are also replies that don't follow the previous statement/question.

"Following" is a concept in argumentation.

[Skepdick]

"Following" is a concept in argumentation.

This is not an argument. This is a dialogue.

Your response is mis-matched to my question. It does not follow. Non-sequitur.

[Terrapin Station]

"Following" is a concept in argumentation.

This is not an argument. This is a dialogue.

Hence why fallacies, concepts like following, etc. do not apply.

[Skepdick]

Hence why fallacies, concepts like following, etc. do not apply.

Non-sequitur (in the non-fallacious sense/use of the phrase).

[Terrapin Station]

Hence why fallacies, concepts like following, etc. do not apply.

Non-sequitur (in the non-fallacious sense/use of the phrase).

Non-sequitur doesn't make sense outside of that context. Or at least you'd have to present whatever alternate usage you're employing that you feel makes sense.