What could make morality objective?

[Age]

Is talking ABOUT someone, instead of CHALLENGING them DIRECTLY, the sign of maturity, or immaturity?

Those are not mutually exclusive actions and further it might depend on one's history with someone. For example, repeatedly challenging some people could very well be a sign of immaturity.

VERY True.

[Age]

VA has everything invested in you as his primary enemy so he can't put you on ignore no matter what you say to him.

Mister wannaplato did mention that he does the same stuff on other forums, have they all gone the same way with only one person on his angry list?

Hey, Flash. Has VA got you on ignore? I think I may be envious.

Btw: how do you put people on ignore?

Oh yeah, he put me on foe a couple of years back, and then he double-foed me a week or two ago.
The only functional difference is that he never refers to you by name I'm afraid.

If you really hate someone (Age for instance), you can click on their name link and add them to an enemies list to ignore them.

There's a friend list there too, nobody has ever mentioned what it does.

WHY the HATRED for "age", "flashdangerpants"?

[FlashDangerpants]

Hey, Flash. Has VA got you on ignore? I think I may be envious.

Btw: how do you put people on ignore?

Oh yeah, he put me on foe a couple of years back, and then he double-foed me a week or two ago.
The only functional difference is that he never refers to you by name I'm afraid.

If you really hate someone (Age for instance), you can click on their name link and add them to an enemies list to ignore them.

There's a friend list there too, nobody has ever mentioned what it does.

WHY the HATRED for "age", "flashdangerpants"?

Everyone who uses those lists mainly seems to do so to filter you out. That's just simple facts.

[Age]

Oh yeah, he put me on foe a couple of years back, and then he double-foed me a week or two ago.
The only functional difference is that he never refers to you by name I'm afraid.

If you really hate someone (Age for instance), you can click on their name link and add them to an enemies list to ignore them.

There's a friend list there too, nobody has ever mentioned what it does.

WHY the HATRED for "age", "flashdangerpants"?

Everyone who uses those lists mainly seems to do so to filter you out. That's just simple facts.

So, are 'you' EVERY one? Or, are you completely and utterly INCAPABLE of just EXPLAINING WHY 'you' have a HATRED for 'age"?

By the way, if you put "age" on your ignore list, then WHY do you read "age's' posts?

[Iwannaplato]

WHILE one is BELIEVING some thing is true, or false, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to SHOW them otherwise. This is because WHILE one is BELIEVING (in) some thing, then they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing contrary to what they BELIEVE (in).

To me this is either trivial or not true. In the moment I believe something I can't believe something else. But I can be shown things that would change my belief. I say trivial because, sure, there will be a delay of some seconds or perhaps much longer. I had a friend who was sure another friend was dead. I put them on the phone with each other. I produced that experience for him. Yes, it took a few seconds. There are countless instances of this in my life, for me and for others. He believed X. It was NOT impossible for me to show him otherwise.

Or, if while you BELIEVED that 'we', human beings, could NEVER live in a peaceful world, then, in that moment, you would NOT be OPEN to LISTENING TO nor LEARNING HOW that works nor how it REALLY IS POSSIBLE.

Of course, I have been open to listen to people explain why X was true or X was false, despite my believing they were incorrect.

And, if you think you could SHOW this, then maybe you would like to begin by giving us an example of some thing that you BELIEVE, wholeheartedly,

Oh, now it has to be whole-heartedly??

is true but you ALSO ACCEPT that it is ACTUALLY NOT or ACTUALLY might NOT be true AT ALL.

Now you have changed what you wrote much more than I did.

That is not the same thing as being open. Nor is it the same thing as it is impossible to show someone that something they believe is wrong.

I also think it is meaningful to refer to some people as open to having their beliefs challenged and changed and others who are not.

[Iwannaplato]

By the way, if you put "age" on your ignore list, then WHY do you read "age's' posts?

I can't answer for him, but I can answer in general how this can happen.
You still see their posts and quotes in the posts of others. You may even read quite a bit before you realize it is someone you have on ignore.
And now you can, in specific cases, see someone you have found to be problematic, mistreating other people. Sometimes I can ignore this. Sometimes I don't want to.

Putting someone on foe or ignore does not have to be some binary decision. One may dip in once in a while, but be glad that the signal to noise ratio is better in the threads.

Sometimes I test the waters, often finding that it still seems like a good decision.

[FlashDangerpants]

WHY the HATRED for "age", "flashdangerpants"?

Everyone who uses those lists mainly seems to do so to filter you out. That's just simple facts.

So, are 'you' EVERY one? Or, are you completely and utterly INCAPABLE of just EXPLAINING WHY 'you' have a HATRED for 'age"?

By the way, if you put "age" on your ignore list, then WHY do you read "age's' posts?

What makes you ASSUME I have AN IGNORE lIST?

I don't give much of a fuck about you Ken, much less stuff in this world is about you than you seem to think. I usually just skip things you've written, I don't need mechanical assistance to not read most of what you write.

[Age]

Everyone who uses those lists mainly seems to do so to filter you out. That's just simple facts.

So, are 'you' EVERY one? Or, are you completely and utterly INCAPABLE of just EXPLAINING WHY 'you' have a HATRED for 'age"?

By the way, if you put "age" on your ignore list, then WHY do you read "age's' posts?

What makes you ASSUME I have AN IGNORE lIST?

I do NOT KNOW WHY I ASSUMED that. But OBVIOUSLY it was MY MISTAKE, correct?

If yes, then this is FURTHER PROOF of WHY it is MUCH BETTER to NEVER ASSUME things.

I don't give much of a fuck about you Ken, much less stuff in this world is about you than you seem to think. I usually just skip things you've written, I don't need mechanical assistance to not read most of what you write.

Okay.

But WHY is it you have a HATRED for "age"?

[FlashDangerpants]

But WHY is it you have a HATRED for "age"?

I thought I was pretty clear, you don't merit a hatred so you can't have any. You are very boring and annoying and that's why most people who use ignore lists will have you on their list. I'm sure the same must be true of TRokenmaaerierl and that weird nutter who calles everyone player as well.

[Age]

X

[Age]

But WHY is it you have a HATRED for "age"?

I thought I was pretty clear, you don't merit a hatred so you can't have any.

In what words of YOURS, EXACTLY, would they make you think you were pretty clear here?

You are very boring and annoying and that's why most people who use ignore lists will have you on their list.

So, it is now NOT EVERY one, as you just previously CLAIMED it was, correct?

I'm sure the same must be true of TRokenmaaerierl and that weird nutter who calles everyone player as well.

Who calls EVERY one "player"?

Also, how 'sure' are you here?

[Sculptor]

What??
Problem is you are stuck in an ancient evolutionary trait of metaphysical realism, thus has selective attention disorder of not being able to understand [not necessary agree with] what is moral facts from the anti-realist perspective which is based on scientific facts.

So far I have raise nearly a 100 threads targeting and culminating is countering your OP 'there are no objective moral fact' and justifying 'there are moral facts'.

Note I wrote this in the other thread;

I have argued the most credible facts are the scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also the mathematical FSK] based on acceptable criteria.
My proposed moral FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts will be of near equivalence to the scientific FSK.
My moral FSK as credible is valid in principle and I agree I will have to justify this near-equivalence.

That is the most funny diversionary tactic yet.
"I can't answer that question, because reality is all wrong!

Questions for Kantians and other anti-realists.

Are reality-as-it-really-is, and the absolute truth of assertions about reality, things that could exist, but happen not to?

If, as I think, the answer is no - then what's the purpose of denying their existence? And what's the purpose of contrasting them with what we call reality and true assertions about that reality?

Kant was wrong, and anti-realism is a profound mistake.

And meanwhile, an anti-realist argument for moral realism is absurd.

Kant would have answered the question. In fact that is exactly one of the questions he did answer, and without prevarication. So keep Kant out of it.

[Sculptor]

This is the SECOND ASSUMPTION you have made here,in just two posts to me.

Oh, and by the way, BOTH have been completely and utterly Wrong AND Incorrect.

SO you do not think morality is objective.
And you do not think morality is subjective.

Do you even know what sort of thing morality is?

LOL

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here could NOT be MORE Wrong, AGAIN.

This is your third post to me here now and the third ASSUMPTION that IS TOTALLY Wrong.

So, I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that you CLARIFY what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct, BEFORE you even begin to make these most ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, like you have been here.

Can you answer a question of not?

What do you think morality is?
Is morality objective?
Is morality subjective?

There are no assumptions here, just questions.

[FlashDangerpants]

But WHY is it you have a HATRED for "age"?

I thought I was pretty clear, you don't merit a hatred so you can't have any.

In what words of YOURS, EXACTLY, would they make you think you were pretty clear here?

You are very boring and annoying and that's why most people who use ignore lists will have you on their list.

So, it is now NOT EVERY one, as you just previously CLAIMED it was, correct?

I'm sure the same must be true of TRokenmaaerierl and that weird nutter who calles everyone player as well.

Who calls EVERY one "player"?

Also, how 'sure' are you here?

All of that is an example of you being boring and irritating. I don't care if you find my answers satisfactory, you have had what you will be getting.

[Age]

SO you do not think morality is objective.
And you do not think morality is subjective.

Do you even know what sort of thing morality is?

LOL

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here could NOT be MORE Wrong, AGAIN.

This is your third post to me here now and the third ASSUMPTION that IS TOTALLY Wrong.

So, I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that you CLARIFY what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct, BEFORE you even begin to make these most ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, like you have been here.

There are no assumptions here, just questions.

This IS True, THIS TIME.

Glad to SEE you took my advice and sought CLARIFICATION, FINALLY.

Can you answer a question of not?

OF COURSE I CAN.

And your question here is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS considering what has ACTUALLY transpired here above in this forum. Anyway;

What do you think morality is?

'Morality', like EVERY "other" thing in the Universe, IS whatever one wants 'it' to be, but what the word 'morality' refers to, to me, is the behavior human beings do in relation to what is classed as being right and/wrong, in Life.

How do you define the 'morality' word "sculptor"?

Is morality objective?

AGAIN, things are WHATEVER one SEES them to be or wants them to be.

But to answer your question here, Yes, to me.

Is morality subjective?

To me, Yes.

But BEFORE you JUMP to ANY ASSUMPTIONS or CONCLUSIONS here I, AGAIN, suggest that you gain CLARIFICATION, FIRST. That way you will NOT be Wrong, AGAIN.

And, if you keep GAINING CLARIFICATION, FIRST, BEFORE you make ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL, then you could NEVER be Wrong EVER AGAIN.

Is morality objective, to you, "sculptor"?