What could make morality objective?

[Age]

So. 'Moral objectivism is dead in the water, drowned along with any other kind of objectivism.'

Got there. What could make morality objective? Nothing.

But what MAKES 'morality' BOTH 'objective' AND 'subjective' IS what I have ALREADY EXPLAINED and REASONED, and what MAKES OTHER 'things' ALSO 'objective' AND 'subjective'.

Some of 'you' were just NOT YET READY for 'this' IRREFUTABLE ANSWER, and STILL ARE NOT. As 'you' WILL PROVE, also IRREFUTABLY True.

[Age]

And voila - the idiot-skeptics take it a step too far and you can just ignore them.

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

To actually answer people who ask stupid questions like "What's wrong with murder?" and "Are you sure Earth isn't flat?" is to give credibility to their questions...

LOL
LOL
LOL

What ANOTHER STUPID RESPONSE.

So, TO 'you', "skepdick", WHEN the FIRST people were ASKING "galileo galilei" things' like, for example, 'Are you sure the sun does revolve around the earth?', then 'these' WERE STUPID QUESTIONS, and IF "galileo galilei", for example, ACTUALLY ANSWERED 'them' back, then "galileo galilei" was GIVING 'credibility' to 'their' so-called and ALLEGED 'STUPID QUESTIONS', right?

[Skepdick]

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

To actually answer people who ask stupid questions like "What's wrong with murder?" and "Are you sure Earth isn't flat?" is to give credibility to their questions...

LOL
LOL
LOL

What ANOTHER STUPID RESPONSE.

So, TO 'you', "skepdick", WHEN the FIRST people were ASKING "galileo galilei" things' like, for example, 'Are you sure the sun does revolve around the earth?', then 'these' WERE STUPID QUESTIONS, and IF "galileo galilei", for example, ACTUALLY ANSWERED 'them' back, then "galileo galilei" was GIVING 'credibility' to 'their' so-called and ALLEGED 'STUPID QUESTIONS', right?

Another stupid response by Age, who is incapable of comprehending how time works, how our understanding changes over time; or how the necessity of the 17th century becomes the stupidity of the 21st.

This mentality we teach our children (that there are no stupid questions) is actively harmful once they go on their own into the real world.

[Age]

To actually answer people who ask stupid questions like "What's wrong with murder?" and "Are you sure Earth isn't flat?" is to give credibility to their questions...

LOL
LOL
LOL

What ANOTHER STUPID RESPONSE.

So, TO 'you', "skepdick", WHEN the FIRST people were ASKING "galileo galilei" things' like, for example, 'Are you sure the sun does revolve around the earth?', then 'these' WERE STUPID QUESTIONS, and IF "galileo galilei", for example, ACTUALLY ANSWERED 'them' back, then "galileo galilei" was GIVING 'credibility' to 'their' so-called and ALLEGED 'STUPID QUESTIONS', right?

Another stupid response by Age, who is incapable of comprehending how time works, how our knowledge changes over time; or how the necessity of the 17th century becomes the stupidity of the 21st.

LOL

'you', "skepdick", were THE one who SAID and WROTE:

'To actually answer people who ask stupid questions like "What's wrong with murder?" and "Are you sure Earth isn't flat?" is to give credibility to their questions...'.

Or, are 'you', now, SAYING and CLAIMING that 'this' is ACTUALLY NOT Correct?

What IS Wrong WITH 'murder'?'

If 'you' can NOT JUST ANSWER 'this' Truly OPEN, VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY CLARIFYING QUESTION, THEN is that BECAUSE 'you' ARE TOO STUPID, or BECAUSE if 'you' even ATTEMPTED would SHOW TO EVERY one "ELSE" that 'you' ARE GIVING 'credibility' TO A STUPID QUESTION?

ALSO, WHEN IS the time OF 'necessity' AND OF 'stupidity' regarding THIS QUESTION?

OBVIOUSLY 'you', human beings, could NOT ANSWER 'THAT QUESTION' IN the so-called '17 century' NOR STILL IN the so-called '21 century'.

By the way, JUST MAYBE "others" ARE SEEING 'your' RESPONSE here as the Truly STUPID one here, "skepdick".

We WILL just have to WAIT, to SEE.

Unless, OF COURSE, 'you' WANT TO BELIEVE otherwise, PRIOR.

[Age]

To actually answer people who ask stupid questions like "What's wrong with murder?" and "Are you sure Earth isn't flat?" is to give credibility to their questions...

LOL
LOL
LOL

What ANOTHER STUPID RESPONSE.

So, TO 'you', "skepdick", WHEN the FIRST people were ASKING "galileo galilei" things' like, for example, 'Are you sure the sun does revolve around the earth?', then 'these' WERE STUPID QUESTIONS, and IF "galileo galilei", for example, ACTUALLY ANSWERED 'them' back, then "galileo galilei" was GIVING 'credibility' to 'their' so-called and ALLEGED 'STUPID QUESTIONS', right?

Another stupid response by Age, who is incapable of comprehending how time works, how our understanding changes over time; or how the necessity of the 17th century becomes the stupidity of the 21st.

This mentality we teach our children (that there are no stupid questions) is actively harmful once they go on their own into the real world.

Do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' can ANSWER, WHY 'this question' IS STUPID?

If yes, then WHY can 'you' NOT ANSWER 'What IS Wrong WITH 'murder'? OR 'WHY 'murder' IS even Wrong?'

But, IF 'you' BELIEVE 'you' CAN, then WHY do 'you' NOT? Are 'you' AFRAID OF some 'thing' here?

ALSO, IS providing responses to so-called and alleged 'STUPID QUESTIONS' GIVING 'credibility' to 'those questions' AS WELL?

Or, does 'this' ONLY WORK WITH THE QUESTIONS 'you' ARE INCAPABLE Of ANSWERING?

[Skepdick]

LOL
LOL
LOL

What ANOTHER STUPID RESPONSE.

So, TO 'you', "skepdick", WHEN the FIRST people were ASKING "galileo galilei" things' like, for example, 'Are you sure the sun does revolve around the earth?', then 'these' WERE STUPID QUESTIONS, and IF "galileo galilei", for example, ACTUALLY ANSWERED 'them' back, then "galileo galilei" was GIVING 'credibility' to 'their' so-called and ALLEGED 'STUPID QUESTIONS', right?

Another stupid response by Age, who is incapable of comprehending how time works, how our understanding changes over time; or how the necessity of the 17th century becomes the stupidity of the 21st.

This mentality we teach our children (that there are no stupid questions) is actively harmful once they go on their own into the real world.

Do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' can ANSWER, WHY 'this question' IS STUPID?

If yes, then WHY can 'you' NOT ANSWER 'What IS Wrong WITH 'murder'? OR 'WHY 'murder' IS even Wrong?'

But, IF 'you' BELIEVE 'you' CAN, then WHY do 'you' NOT? Are 'you' AFRAID OF some 'thing' here?

ALSO, IS providing responses to so-called and alleged 'STUPID QUESTIONS' GIVING 'credibility' to 'those questions' AS WELL?

Or, does 'this' ONLY WORK WITH THE QUESTIONS 'you' ARE INCAPABLE Of ANSWERING?

Somebody get a mop to clean up this snowflake's meltdown...

[Age]

Another stupid response by Age, who is incapable of comprehending how time works, how our understanding changes over time; or how the necessity of the 17th century becomes the stupidity of the 21st.

This mentality we teach our children (that there are no stupid questions) is actively harmful once they go on their own into the real world.

Do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' can ANSWER, WHY 'this question' IS STUPID?

If yes, then WHY can 'you' NOT ANSWER 'What IS Wrong WITH 'murder'? OR 'WHY 'murder' IS even Wrong?'

But, IF 'you' BELIEVE 'you' CAN, then WHY do 'you' NOT? Are 'you' AFRAID OF some 'thing' here?

ALSO, IS providing responses to so-called and alleged 'STUPID QUESTIONS' GIVING 'credibility' to 'those questions' AS WELL?

Or, does 'this' ONLY WORK WITH THE QUESTIONS 'you' ARE INCAPABLE Of ANSWERING?

Somebody get a mop to clean up this snowflake's meltdown...

ANOTHER who HAS BEEN SHOWN and PROVED Wrong who just RUNS AWAY, while 'TRYING TO' HUMILIATE DURING the RUNNING.

'you' MADE the CLAIMS, I SHOWED the STUPIDITY and ABSURDNESS IN the CLAIMS, SO WHY do 'you' NOT STAY and 'TRY TO' back up and support 'YOUR" CLAIMS?

OBVIOUSLY NO one is AGREEING WITH you and ACCEPTING YOUR STUPID CLAIMS.

[Skepdick]

OBVIOUSLY NO one is AGREEING WITH you and ACCEPTING YOUR STUPID CLAIMS.

Great! So carry on not agreeing and not accepting my stupid claims then.

Age doesn't agree or accept that murder is wrong.

And now there were three idiots in the stupid corner.

Age, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes and Hairball. It's a crowd.

In other (unrelated) news. I am the "disagreeable asshole"

[Harbal]

Age doesn't agree or accept that murder is wrong.

And now there were three idiots in the stupid corner.

I don't think any of us are saying murder isn't wrong; we probably all think it is wrong in a particular context and in our own opinion. But just to say murder is wrong is too vague to mean anything. To distort what people are actually saying in order to try to make it appear you are justified in calling them idiots may feel gratifying to you, but you are the one who is left looking like an idiot.

[Skepdick]

And the double standard continues...

I don't think any of us are saying murder isn't wrong. we probably all think it is wrong in a particular context and in our own opinion. But just to say murder is wrong is too vague to mean anything.

I don't think any of us are saying this color isn't red. We probably all think it is red in a particular context and in our own opinion. But to just say this color is red is too vague to mean anything.

square-xxl.png

To distort what people are actually saying in order to try to make it appear you are justified in calling them idiots may feel gratifying to you, but you are the one who is left looking like an idiot.

Are you sure? What is it that I am distorting in drawing attention to your double standard?

[Harbal]

And the double standard continues...

I don't think any of us are saying murder isn't wrong. we probably all think it is wrong in a particular context and in our own opinion. But just to say murder is wrong is too vague to mean anything.

I don't think any of us are saying this color isn't red. We probably all think this is red in a particular context and in our own opinion. But to just say this color is red is too vague to mean anything.

square-xxl.png

Can't you put your red fetish aside for a while?

[Skepdick]

And the double standard continues...

I don't think any of us are saying murder isn't wrong. we probably all think it is wrong in a particular context and in our own opinion. But just to say murder is wrong is too vague to mean anything.

I don't think any of us are saying this color isn't red. We probably all think this is red in a particular context and in our own opinion. But to just say this color is red is too vague to mean anything.

square-xxl.png

Can't you put your red fetish aside for a while?

Sure thing!

As soon as you answer your own questions when applied to my square; and account for your double standard.

[Peter Holmes]

The dick-for-brains thinks any declarative can assert a fact, and can be true or false, depending on criteria. So the dick-for brains thinks the declarative 'murder is wrong' can assert a fact, but can be true or false, depending on criteria.

But the dick-for-brains thinks morality is objective (?) and that anyone who doesn't think murder is wrong is stupid. Lol.

To repeat, the dick-for brains is an unpleasant, intellectually-challenged, attention-seeking and - as it happens - self-confessed troll. And the above argumentative car crash illustrates the quality of its reasoning.

[Skepdick]

The dick-for-brains thinks any declarative can assert a fact, and can be true or false, depending on criteria. So the dick-for brains thinks the declarative 'murder is wrong' can assert a fact, but can be true or false, depending on criteria.

Heyyyy look! Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is moving goal posts again - readjusting the criteria! Notice that sneaky use of "ANY declarative"...

Suddenly he agrees that SOME declaratives can assert facts.

But the dick-for-brains thinks morality is objective (?) and that anyone who doesn't think murder is wrong is stupid. Lol.

The subjectivity or objectivity of morality is immaterial. Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes rejects that murder is wrong.

Idiot.

To repeat, the dick-for brains is an unpleasant, intellectually-challenged, attention-seeking and - as it happens - self-confessed troll. And the above argumentative car crash illustrates the quality of its reasoning.

What pissess you off more? The fact that I am "unpleasant, intellectually-challenged, attention-seeking self-confessed troll.".

Or that an unpleasant, intellectually-challenged, attention-seeking self-confessed troll is outmaneuvering you every time?

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's reasoning is of such outstanding "quality" that he keeps giving himsel reasons to reject the wrongness of murder.

[Harbal]

Can't you put your red fetish aside for a while?

Sure thing!

As soon as you answer your own questions when applied to my square; and account for your double standard.

I don't believe I am exhibiting any double standard; perhaps you can tell me in what way I am.