Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Magnus Anderson]

Not synonymous by your degree, but there are many degrees.

They are either synonymous or they are not. No degrees are involved. And it just happens that they are not.

You check whether two terms are synonymous by looking at their definitions. If their definitions are describing the same concepts, then they are synonymous. Otherwise, they are not.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not synonymous by your degree, but there are many degrees.

They are either synonymous or they are not. No degrees are involved. And it just happens that they are not.

You check whether two terms are synonymous by looking at their definitions. If their definitions are describing the same concepts, then they are synonymous. Otherwise, they are not.

Duality results in gradation:

1. There is a dualism of thesis and antithesis.

2. This dualism is thetical to the antithesis of the absence of this dualism.

3. There is a dualism of said dualism.

4. This dualism is thetical and there is an anthesis to this dualism.

5. There is a dualism of the dualism of the dualism.

6. Infinite regress of dualism by degree of gradation of it.

Dualism results in grades. It is not an either or question you present evidenced by the nature of dualism itself.

The objective morality you argue is but a synonym for cause and effect and yet cause and effect is a relationship of distinctions, observed by the mind, thus relegating even a pure deterministic approach futile by degree of it being a concept that loops upon itself, for if things are purely deterministic, and this conversation is determined by this nature, than determinism is but a self looping of things.

This self looping of determinism makes reality self-aware by degree of self-referentiality thus nullifying a mind independent reality you argue for.

I think you fail to see that morality is a process that occurs through the mind and a mind independent morality would cease to exist as a morality, for if morality is the means by which the mind processes reality than a mind independent morality ceases to be what it is as a mental process.

An objective morality, mind independent in your context, is self refuting.

[Age]

If you "magnus anderson", really, still, after all of these back and forth posts, can not yet comprehend, and understand, these three claims, of mine, then you are more blind, closed, and stupid, than I first noticed.

It's pointless to argue against the meaning that I assign to the word "objective".

According to this so-called 'logic', and along with your other claim that it is the "writer'" who gets to choose 'the meaning' for words, then it is pointless for 'you' to argue against the meaning that 'I' assign to the word 'objective', as well.

Any word can be assigned any meaning. It's an arbitrary thing guided only by use value. And in the case of words, the use value mostly revolves around being easily and correctly understood. There are no true and false meanings. The word "objective", like all other words, has no true meaning.

If this is what you want to believe is absolutely true, then this is okay, with me.

You're expecting me to assign the same meaning to the word that you assign yourself.

No I am not.

Why did you assume and/or believe some thing so False as this?

You use the word "objective" to mean "that which can be accepted by everyone". That's your own prerogative. Personally, I would never use it that way myself because noone other than you does so.

Please do not forget that it is 'you' who is 'the one' having a great deal of trouble getting 'your own belief/s' accepted and agreed with, here.

'I', on the other hand, are just pointing out why 'you' are having so much trouble and issues, here.

And, let 'us' not forgetting that it you human beings, in the days when this was being written, who were, still, somewhat very lost and confused, with and from your generally accepted meanings and/or definitions. Just maybe a 'shake up' of meanings and/or definitions might highlight, exactly, where, how, and why you human beings have, still, not yet 'caught up'.

Also, your own assumption and/or belief, here, of what I mean by 'objective' is not exactly Right. But, this is totally understandable since you do not seek out and obtain clarification, and thus clarity, first.

The probability of being misunderstood would be unnecessarily high.

But, just like I have been constantly expressing, and suggesting, throughout this forum, when you human beings just stop assuming and/or believing things, and just become open and then remain open, while being Truly curios, then there is no 'misunderstanding', anyway.

If you tried it some time, you might learn, and see, just how beneficial being Truly open, honest, and curios is, and was, to you human beings.

The same exact mistake was made by Skepdick earlier in this thread. He used the word "objective" to mean "ontologically existent" which basically means "existent".

But, 'you' have not made a mistake anywhere, here, correct?

Imagine have 'the belief', 'morality is objective', using very specific meanings and/or definitions for the words that you are going to present, and then claim that if any one does not use 'those words' in 'those ways', then it is 'them' who makes mistakes.

Laughingly, as soon as you finished presenting 'your argument', from your already believed conclusion, then any one could just present different meanings and/or definitions and just present 'an argument' for the exact opposition conclusion.

Which is more or less what you human beings have just been doing for centuries and even millennia in regards to what are sometimes called 'philosophical discussions and/or questions'.

Now, 'the solution' to 'the Wrong way' you are showing, and proving, here, is to just stop what you are doing, and then just proceed in the completely different way, which I have been continually and constantly pointing out, and showing.

In that sense of the word, anything that exists in the world is objective.

Which would mean, and make, 'morality', itself, objective. Thus, aligning with exactly what 'it' is that you want to say and claim, here, right?

As such, given that morality exists, morality is objective too.

Great. So, 'morality is objective', [by "magnus anderson", and, "skepdick"]

But that's not what's being discussed here in this thread. Pretty much everyone agrees that morality exists.

Who does not?

The question is how.

Through thought, and thinking itself.

Specifically, the question is: does it exist independently from minds?

But, once more, there are no 'minds'.

And, as always, if absolutely any one would like to have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion, and 'this', then let 'us' begin.

But, obviously, if you, or any one, wants to believe otherwise, then, as always, there is absolutely no use in having any type of discussion.

He tried to force his idiosyncratic meaning onto me the same way you're trying to force yours.

But, your own personal meaning for 'that word' is not 'idiosyncratic', to 'you', correct?

I have already mentioned a few times already about how you human beings will 'look for' and 'use' any words, which you hope will somehow back up and support your already held onto beliefs, views, and/or assumptions.

Again, I would never use the word "objective" his way because noone other than him [ Skepdick ] does so. The probability of being misunderstood would be unnecessarily high.

But it does not matter in 'what way' you use the word 'objective', if you just express, clearly and specifically, or exactly, how 'you use' 'that or any other word', then there is no probability at all of being misunderstood. And, if any one is not absolutely sure of how anyone else is 'using' any word, then I will, again, suggest just asking 'that one' clarifying questions until 'they' are understood.

Also, and obviously, if you do not yet, fully, understand what another means when they say and 'use' any word, then instead of having any 'misunderstanding', at all, I will, also again, suggest just asking clarifying questions until you do know and understand, for sure.

You're now tasked with the impossible which is to prove that it's necessary for me to assign the same meaning to the word "objective" that you're assigning yourself.

Are you also 'now' tasked with the exact same what you call 'impossibility'?

If no, then why not, and why do you not have to prove that it is necessary for me to assign the same meaning to the word 'objective' that you are assigning "yourself"?

I am pretty sure you're not even going to attempt that, let alone succeed at it.

I would attempt, and achieve, if you were open, here. But, considering you are not open, then there is no use even trying.

Also, are you even going to attempt to prove, to me, that it is necessary for me to assign the same meaning to the word 'objective' that you are assigning "yourself"?

If no, then why would you even expect me to do 'the same'?

It's a futile effort.

If this is what you have already concluded, and are already believing is absolutely true, then okay.

All you're going to do is just repeat yourself, which is more or less all you did ever since you joined this thread.

But, to 'you', 'you' have not, right?

I understand that you argue that minds do not exist.

Is 'this' really what you understand?

If yes, then you have a lot more to learn, here, and how, exactly, do you even think I have 'argued' that 'minds' do not exist?

In other words, what do you imagine is 'my argument', exactly?

Peter Holmes argued the same earlier in the thread.

Okay.

You're not the first to do so.

Okay.

And although I can very easily define the word "mind", as I already did earlier in this thread, and show that minds do exist, whether or not minds exist has no impact on the meaning that I am attaching, nor on the meaning that I should be attaching, to the word "objective".

Yet 'you' 'use' the 'mind/s' word in your claim. or in your attempt to 'argue', here.

Now, any one can very easily define the word, 'mind'. However, if 'that definition' fits in, perfectly, with all other words, and their definitions, is another thing 'we' will have to wait, to see.

[Age]

Objectivity is shared subjective states, evidence of thus is consensus of facts within a scientific community

That's intersubjectivity, "The shared perception of reality between two or more individuals."

It's also popular opinion, "An opinion that is held by the majority of the people within a given group."

This thread has nothing to do with that.

If only you knew.

You have to distinguish between morality qua beliefs and morality qua laws. Intersubjectivity pertains to the former.

Why do you not start with just, 'What is 'morality', exactly, first?' And, then see if you can accomplish agreement and acceptance of 'this', first?

The thesis of this thread isn't, "A set of moral beliefs S is the most popular set of moral beliefs within some group of people G."

The thesis is, "Moral laws are mind-independent".

Yet 'you' just claimed, to 'me', 'whether or not minds exist has no impact on the meaning that I am attaching, nor on the meaning that I should be attaching, to the word "objective".'

Are you able to see any contradiction of 'yours', here?

[Age]

Morality is a distinction of groups, societies, and communities of organisms. Morality for an organism in isolation is nonsense; there is nothing to relate to in isolation. You are a subjective consciousness, and that means there is really nothing objective, for all meaning is the creation of a subjective life form which has a projected reality of sensing and understanding processed through its own being. Your apparent reality is a biological readout; your senses and understandings are projected onto a meaningless world. This does not mean there is nothing out there, but you do not experience what is out there. You experience how what is out there changes, alters, or affects your biology; you are experiencing your biology as apparent reality.

Biologically, unadorned inherent morality is survival oriented.

But you would need to prove that "survival" is a moral imperative.

By your own mis/behavior you are proving that 'survival' is a moral imperative.

The 'survival' of every species is imperative.

And clearly, it's not imperative -- nature allows species to go extinct all the time.

But, the imperative to you human beings, which are the only ones who think about 'morality', in relation to 'morality', itself, is a different 'imperative' to 'Nature', Itself.

It's also in need of proof that that is a moral issue.

Why, do you believe there is no 'moral issue', in Life.

A different person might only recognize in it survival of the fittest and natural extinction, and see no moral value attached to either.

Who thinks, views, or believes there is no 'moral value' attached to 'life', and living, itself?

And, what you or someone else might, only, recognize, here, has no real bearing on whether 'morality is objective', or not.

It is objectively immoral to wrong your neighbor because that could create a survival challenge.

This cannot be right.

So, 'now' you, "immanuel can", are disagreeing with what God, Itself, instructs you, human beings, in the bible.

As we have seen, "survival" isn't moral or imperative -- either for you, nor for your neighbour.

This is just what you believe, and claim, is true, But, obviously you have never proved this.

But you're weakening the claim even beyond this, for you say it "could create" a surivival "challenge," which implies it might not. And from a conditional premise, no categorical conclusion ever follows. That's a basic rule of logic.

This applies to everyone, therefore it is objective.

I don't see how you are showing this. A conditional "could" claim, doesn't apply to everyone, or even every case of anyone. It might not happen at all. So it's not capable of being objective...it might not even be real.

The method of wronging the neighbor can vary according to the culture.

Cultural relativism? Then it cannot be objective for that reason, too.

It is commanded in the Koran to beat one's wife (in "The Chapter of Women," which see), and yet in Western society we are told that beating one's wife is abuse, show, using cultural relativism, which is objectively right.

Can you do it?

'This' appears quite hilarious considering that it has been you who claimed that what is written and said in the bible by God is what is morally objectively right, in Life.

[Walker]

Always a pleasure, IC.

But you would need to prove that "survival" is a moral imperative. And clearly, it's not imperative -- nature allows species to go extinct all the time. It's also in need of proof that that is a moral issue. A different person might only recognize in it survival of the fittest and natural extinction, and see no moral value attached to either.

Life is the measure of all things, including morality. No life, no morality.

It is objectively immoral to wrong your neighbor because that could create a survival challenge.

This cannot be right. As we have seen, "survival" isn't moral or imperative -- either for you, nor for your neighbour. But you're weakening the claim even beyond this, for you say it "could create" a surivival "challenge," which implies it might not. And from a conditional premise, no categorical conclusion ever follows. That's a basic rule of logic.

Wronging your neighbor creates the secondary condition that activates the innate survival imperative, an imperative so strong that it can only be overcome by self-concept, a self-concept easily influenced by chemical alterations in the biology.

This applies to everyone, therefore it is objective.

I don't see how you are showing this. A conditional "could" claim, doesn't apply to everyone, or even every case of anyone. It might not happen at all. So it's not capable of being objective...it might not even be real.

Creating a life-challenging situation by wronging one’s neighbor applies to every human, however every situation is mitigated by situational factors when it comes to humans. By having a creative capacity from being made in the image of, humans can mitigate life-challenging situations according to their capacity, experience, and good luck.

The method of wronging the neighbor can vary according to the culture.

Cultural relativism? Then it cannot be objective for that reason, too.

Cultural relativism is necessary as the secondary condition that activates the primary condition. The primary condition is wronging the neighbor. The relative condition is culturally dependent, such as stealing what the neighbor legally calls his own, which is an infringement on the victim’s inherent sense of fairness, a sense likely originating from bilateral symmetry of the body that predisposes interpretation of perception towards balance, even metaphorically.

It is commanded in the Koran to beat one's wife (in "The Chapter of Women," which see), and yet in Western society we are told that beating one's wife is abuse, show, using cultural relativism, which is objectively right.

When primordial morality conflicts with cultural morality, the individual faces a fork in the road. Both tines of the fork are paved with relativistic, cultural morality, and the individual must accept that condition. However, the two tines differ in another way. Down one road, the individual’s primordial morality is conditioned by the road upon which he treads, maybe even trudges, across the tundra mile after mile. He knows in his bones that what he does is wrong (whatever that may be) even though it's condoned by the culture, because everyone knows wrong from right, however with the cleverness of doublethink he becomes complicit in the conditioning that accepts that war is peace, nothing is something, wrong is right, opposites actually exist, something is nothing, someone is no one, and so on. The other road is the one less traveled. It is the one traversed by the unconditioned human, one not conditioned by the road, or by the culture, or by the relativistic values of the society … even though the individual must walk down that road that says to the conditioned to go ahead, kill your neighbor before he can resist. It's okay, you can do it, it's accepted now in the culture. The moment of truth when action truly defines choice.

However, here’s what must be further deconstructed. Is man an inarticulate savage that chains the elephant with the threat of pain such as beating his wife, or is man clever enough to entice the elephant as in, making it the reality of his creation? Well, considering that it has always been the best of times and the worst of times populated with the worst of people and the best of people, then that’s another fork in the road. Another bilateral symmetry consisting of two tines. Consciousness takes the tine it must, takes that tine daily be it a mud path or cosmic highway, and there are traditions (religions) to accommodate both.

Can you do it?

Fit the template?

[Immanuel Can]

Always a pleasure, IC.

Likewise. My questions to you here are not antagonistic to the point that morality exists or that it's objective; rather, they're intended to help us establish the right basis on which to believe these things. I'm questioning the basis suggested, namely "survival," because I don't think it will stand up to a skeptical challenge. I think we can find a better basis, though.

But you would need to prove that "survival" is a moral imperative. And clearly, it's not imperative -- nature allows species to go extinct all the time. It's also in need of proof that that is a moral issue. A different person might only recognize in it survival of the fittest and natural extinction, and see no moral value attached to either.

Life is the measure of all things, including morality. No life, no morality.

Well, it is true that non-living things can't have morality. But then, there's a ton of things the dead can't have, and most of them aren't even moral. That life is a precondition for morality would not show that morality is real, or that any particular moral stance is justified. Life is also a precondition for riding unicorns.

In fact, the mere existence of "life" doesn't imply morality. Chimps, dogs, fish and amoebas have life, but no particular relation to morality. So the one is certainly possible without the other. And we still need some grounds for morality, and a showing of its objectivity.

It is objectively immoral to wrong your neighbor because that could create a survival challenge.

This cannot be right. As we have seen, "survival" isn't moral or imperative -- either for you, nor for your neighbour. But you're weakening the claim even beyond this, for you say it "could create" a surivival "challenge," which implies it might not. And from a conditional premise, no categorical conclusion ever follows. That's a basic rule of logic.

Wronging your neighbor creates the secondary condition that activates the innate survival imperative, an imperative so strong that it can only be overcome by self-concept, a self-concept easily influenced by chemical alterations in the biology.

If that were true, then wronging one's neighbour would be difficult or impossible for a human being to bring himself or herself to do. But in fact, we find it's not only possible but easy. Most people feel no particular "imperative" about the neighbour -- which is precisely why the commandment became necessary. For you'll notice that God gives no commandment "thou shalt breathe," or "thou must drink water," since everybody does that automatically, and, as you suggest, finds it biologically imperative to do so. But morality's nothing like that, and there's no similar imperative in our nature to respond to any particular moral version.

This applies to everyone, therefore it is objective.

I don't see how you are showing this. A conditional "could" claim, doesn't apply to everyone, or even every case of anyone. It might not happen at all. So it's not capable of being objective...it might not even be real.

Creating a life-challenging situation by wronging one’s neighbor applies to every human, however every situation is mitigated by situational factors when it comes to humans. By having a creative capacity from being made in the image of, humans can mitigate life-challenging situations according to their capacity, experience, and good luck.

This doesn't solve the basic problem at all. The basic problem is twofold:
1. You're premising an objective conclusion on a premise that you have worded as a conditional -- that's an insuperable logical fault.
2. There's still no showing that this is universal.
To which we might add a third:
3. Even were it universal, it would not show that we had a duty to it. Lust, rage, envy, deception and malice are also universal -- so universal that no human being fails to practice and experience them at some point in life -- but they aren't moral. And I'm sure that's what you believe, too.

The method of wronging the neighbor can vary according to the culture.

Cultural relativism? Then it cannot be objective for that reason, too.

Cultural relativism is necessary as the secondary condition that activates the primary condition. The primary condition is wronging the neighbor.

Cultural relativism causes the harming of neighbours? Not in any direct or obvious way. Proponents of cultural relativism insist it's a good way NOT to harm one's neighbour, by never imposing any moral demands on him at all, which they regard as harmful. So you'll have to make that case, too.

...an infringement on the victim’s inherent sense of fairness,

No, no. This won't do at all. Just because I "feel" something certainly doesn't prove I have a moral duty to do it, far less that my neighbour feels it. He may or may not see what I do as "unfair," but that doesn't prove it is. He can easily be wrong, or merely be shilling for his own interests.

It is commanded in the Koran to beat one's wife (in "The Chapter of Women," which see), and yet in Western society we are told that beating one's wife is abuse, show, using cultural relativism, which is objectively right.

When primordial morality conflicts with cultural morality, the individual faces a fork in the road. Both tines of the fork are paved with relativistic, cultural morality, and the individual must accept that condition. However, the two tines differ in another way. Down one road, the individual’s primordial morality is conditioned by the road upon which he treads, maybe even trudges, across the tundra mile after mile. He knows in his bones that what he does is wrong (whatever that may be) even though it's condoned by the culture, because everyone knows wrong from right, however with the cleverness of doublethink he becomes complicit in the conditioning that accepts that war is peace, nothing is something, wrong is right, opposites actually exist, and so on. The other road is the one less traveled. It is the one traversed by the unconditioned human, one not conditioned by the road, or by the culture, or by the relativistic values of the society … even though the individual must walk down that road that says to the conditioned to go ahead, kill your neighbor before he can resist. It's okay, you can do it, it's accepted now in the culture.

Let's simplify this.

You're running two different "stories" into each other. One is cultural relativism, which implies there is no objective morality at all. The other is objective morality, which necessitates that morality is above all cultures and capable of judging them. There's no possibility, logically speaking, of reconciling those two, far less making them serve each other's implications. One is objectivist, and the other is ardently, deliberately, purposefully subjectivist. You'll have to pick one and stay with it.

Here's what I think you believe. I think you believe in objective morality. So do I. But cultural relativism is a story from an alien worldview, the secular worldview, and isn't logical and rationally defensible or coherent, and isn't even possible to believe in the real presence of objective morality.

On the subject of wife-beating:

...there are traditions (religions) to accommodate both.

This is just a restating of the problem, not a solving of it. That there are "traditions to accommodate both" and if (as cultural relativists insist) both are legitimate, then beating one's wife is never right or wrong. It's just one of many "cultural" options one can take.

I don't think you believe that. I think you believe wife-beating is objectively wrong, that the Koran is encouraging something evil and the Biblical mandate to "love one's wife" and to "live with one's wife in an understanding way" are objectively right, regardless of one's culture. I think if your Muslim neighbour were beating his wife, you'd report him to the authorities or stop him in some other way. I don't think you'd say, "Well, it's his culture, so he can do what he likes."

So I think you should scrap cultural relativism as any kind of explanation. The mere fact that the Koran approves and commands wife-beating does not make it moral or right...and that's objective, not relative.

[Magnus Anderson]

According to this so-called 'logic', and along with your other claim that it is the "writer'" who gets to choose 'the meaning' for words, then it is pointless for 'you' to argue against the meaning that 'I' assign to the word 'objective', as well.

Correct. But you miss one very important point. The thread is mine. The main thesis of this thread is also mine. If you want to evaluate its truth value, you have to understand how I'm using the words. In other words, you have to work with my definitions. If I say the word "objective" means "mind independent", you have to accept that. Otherwise, you will end up misunderstanding the main thesis, and by doing that, your responses will be irrelevant and off-topic, and your counter-arguments will be made of straw.

Also, are you even going to attempt to prove, to me, that it is necessary for me to assign the same meaning to the word 'objective' that you are assigning "yourself"?

Done.

No I am not.

Why did you assume and/or believe some thing so False as this?

It's more than obvious that it is true. You said that my definition is "false". Clearly, you want me to adopt the "true" definition. And that means yours.

Please do not forget that it is 'you' who is 'the one' having a great deal of trouble getting 'your own belief/s' accepted and agreed with, here.

'I', on the other hand, are just pointing out why 'you' are having so much trouble and issues, here.

You aren't really doing that.

Also, your own assumption and/or belief, here, of what I mean by 'objective' is not exactly Right.

It's not an assumption in the least. You said it yourself.

Here:

All definitions are subjective ones, however what makes a definition and objective one, and thus a definition that is actually irrefutable True is the exact same thing that makes up 'objectivity', itself. For those who are, still, not yet aware, it is 'that', which could be agreed with and accepted by every one, which is what is objective, and thus irrefutably True, in Life.

Emphasis is mine.

In other words, you use the word "objective" to mean "that which can be agreed with and accepted by everyone".

It's an idiosyncratic meaning. Your very own. Pretty much noone except for you uses the word this way.

But, this is totally understandable since you do not seek out and obtain clarification, and thus clarity, first.

Actually, I do seek out clarification. In fact, I made quite a bit of an effort trying to get you to clarify what you're saying. The problem is that I had to pressure you a bit too much in order to make you do that. And even then, you didn't really do a great job.

If you tried it some time, you might learn, and see, just how beneficial being Truly open, honest, and curios is, and was, to you human beings.

The thread isn't about me. It's also not about humans in general, Mr. Non-Human. Stick to the topic. Discuss the ideas. If you can't do that, leave. Understand that everything negative you can say about others, I can very easily say about you.

Now, 'the solution' to 'the Wrong way' you are showing, and proving, here, is to just stop what you are doing, and then just proceed in the completely different way, which I have been continually and constantly pointing out, and showing.

How about you take your own advice?

Which would mean, and make, 'morality', itself, objective. Thus, aligning with exactly what 'it' is that you want to say and claim, here, right?

Not really.

Great. So, 'morality is objective', [by "magnus anderson", and, "skepdick"]

Not really. Magnus and Skepdick are using one and the same expression to say two different things. Magnus is saying that morality is mind independent. Skepdick is saying that it exists. Two different things.

But, your own personal meaning for 'that word' is not 'idiosyncratic', to 'you', correct?

It is not.

And I've shown to you that it is not.

I would attempt, and achieve, if you were open, here. But, considering you are not open, then there is no use even trying.

You have the right to think that other people are closed minded even when they are not. That's your own right. If you don't want to discuss the topic, you're free to leave. I am not going to beg you to stay.

[Magnus Anderson]

If only you knew.

I can say the same about you.

If only you knew.

Why do you not start with just, 'What is 'morality', exactly, first?' And, then see if you can accomplish agreement and acceptance of 'this', first?

I already did. It's in the OP.

Yet 'you' just claimed, to 'me', 'whether or not minds exist has no impact on the meaning that I am attaching, nor on the meaning that I should be attaching, to the word "objective".'

Are you able to see any contradiction of 'yours', here?

The fact that you think there's a contradiction does not mean there is one.

In an attempt to discredit what they personally dislike, people often see contradictions when there are none.

Contradictions can be, and they very often are, illusory.

It's rampant on this forum. It's a fashionable disease to be mindlessly critical of everything.

You have to learn to distinguish between the truth value of a statement and the is/ought of the assigned meaning. In the above, you're addressing the truth value of the statement "Moral laws are mind independent". And even in that case, whether or not minds exist is irrelevant.

The statement "Humans are unicorn independent" is saying that humans can exist even if no unicorns exist. It's obviously true, right? But how can that be the case given that unicorns do not exist? Well, it might be the case because the statement isn't saying that unicorns exist. It's merely saying that humans can exist without unicorns.

In the same exact way, the statement "Moral laws are mind independent" isn't saying that minds exist. It's merely saying that moral laws can exist without minds.

If minds do not exist, as you say, a claim that is blatantly false; and if morality does exist; then it immediately follows that morality is mind independent.

So I am not really sure what you're trying to do here in this thread. You should be agreeing with me ( for wrong reasons, of course, but still . . . )

[MikeNovack]

My problem, Magnus, is understanding what you mean by saying a function is objectively true (when its domain is empty).
Let MSh be a human moral system, let S be a situation, let hCA be a human choice of action. Then we have a function
MSh ( S, hCA ) = [ right , wrong ] The range of the function is those two values, The domain of the function all POSSIBLE situations and human choices of action (the function is undefined if either impossible).

Now once humans are extinct, the set of hCA becomes empty, so the results of MSh become undefined. You want to say MSh still exists but what do you mean by that? How would you tell it apart from any other function that was also always undefined. For example:

Let MS'h be defined as reverse MSh << if MSh evaluates [ right, wrong ] then MS'h evaluates [ wrong, right } >>

If there are no humans, isn't MS'h = MSh ? << they always are undefined and so NEVER give a different answer from the other. >> OK, it might make sense to say there is ONE objective function U (empty domain) = undefined

We DO have functions that are "objective" . For example SQ (squared) has a domain N (numbers) SQ ( N )= N' Now it makes sense to say SQ is objective because its domain and range are also objective. I'm not so sure what we mean by saying we have an objective function whose domain is contingent on existence.

[Magnus Anderson]

Now once humans are extinct, the set of hCA becomes empty, so the results of MSh become undefined. You want to say MSh still exists but what do you mean by that?

The thing is that your set of human choices of action is the set of all existing human choices of action. That's why it depends on the existence of humans. If instead it were the set of all conceivable or possible human choices of action, it would be akin to the square function. In the square function, the domain is not the set of all quantities that exist but the set of all quantities that can be conceived. So the square function is not only mind independent, it's also independent from the kind of quantities that actually exist. In other words, even if you made the entire universe finite in size, and super small, the square function would still hold. That's because the function does not concern itself with actual existence, i.e. what exists materially in the present. Morality is the same. It's concerned with possible situations, possible decision makers and possible choices.

[Age]

According to this so-called 'logic', and along with your other claim that it is the "writer'" who gets to choose 'the meaning' for words, then it is pointless for 'you' to argue against the meaning that 'I' assign to the word 'objective', as well.

Correct. But you miss one very important point. The thread is mine.

But I did not miss 'this', (what you claim is one very important point), at all. As can be seen by 'my words' above, here, which have already addressed 'this very point'.

you claim that 'the writer' gets to 'choose the meaning/s', for words, but, as I have already pointed out, when I or others respond to you, here, in a forum, 'we' 'now' become 'the writers'. And, according to your own so-called 'logic' 'we', 'now', also become 'the ones' who get to 'choose' 'the meanings'. How come you missed 'this point', last time I addressed it?

Do not forget that, here, you are not writing 'a book', where others do not get to respond and write back. Like 'you', here, in this forum, are 'a writer' so too 'we' are also 'writers'.

So, if you really want to believe that only 'the writer/s' get to 'choose the meanings of words', then you will just have to accept the very reason why you are having such a difficult experience, here.

For example, if 'a writer' 'chooses' to make 'a meaning' for the word 'objective', 'one' that means that 'morality' would be 'objective', then 'that writer' could then just concluded, 'Therefore, morality is objective'.

Which would, obviously, be a very circular, and very foolish, way of 'trying to' argue, here.

The main thesis of this thread is also mine.

So, in other words you want every one, here, to just accept and agree with your own personal and subjective provided 'meanings/s'.

If you want to evaluate its truth value, you have to understand how I'm using the words.

I have already done so, and which is the very reason why I pointed out that 'minds' do not exist, and that you would have to provide a definition, and/or a meaning for the 'morality' word, as well.

Which are just more 'points' that you appear to have completely missed, or just want to ignore, as well, also.

In other words, you have to work with my definitions. If I say the word "objective" means "mind independent", you have to accept that.

1. I do not 'have to' do either.

2. If I 'have to' work with 'your definitions', and 'have to' accept that, then I can just start a thread, and then you will 'have to' work with 'my definitions', and will 'have to' just accept that, right?

If yes, then there is no wonder the people, in the days when this is being written, were, relatively, always bickering, in conflict, and fighting with each other. There is no wonder there was so much warring and killing of each other.

3. The sooner you learn, and understand, that I do not 'have to' with your own personal and subjective meanings and definitions, then the sooner you will realize and learn that what you assume and believe is not necessarily True and Right, in Life, at all.

Imagine assuming that 'morality is objective', then concluding that 'it' is true, and then believing, absolutely, that it is absolutely true, and then, laughingly, providing a definition, or meaning, which does not even fit in with what is actually irrefutably True, in Life, in just the 'hope' that 'that definition and/or meaning' will back up and support one's own personal believed belief and assumption.

Otherwise, you will end up misunderstanding the main thesis, and by doing that, your responses will be irrelevant and off-topic, and your counter-arguments will be made of straw.

But, I have already pointed out what is Wrong with your own personal so-called 'main thesis'.

you are 'the one' who has been getting lost and confused, and not understanding, here.

Also, are you even going to attempt to prove, to me, that it is necessary for me to assign the same meaning to the word 'objective' that you are assigning "yourself"?

Done.

LOL

But, you never have to assign the 'same meaning' to words that other, 'writers', assign "themselves'", right?

Once again what 'we' can clearly see, here, is another prime example of hypocrisy at its highest level.

No I am not.

Why did you assume and/or believe some thing so False as this?

It's more than obvious that it is true. You said that my definition is "false". Clearly, you want me to adopt the "true" definition. And that means yours.

LOL Again, why did you assume and/or believe some thing so False as 'this'?

LOL I have never ever even thought, let alone stated and claimed that I have some definition that 'I' want 'you' to adopt. Once again "martin peter clarke' your assumptions have led you completely and utterly astray, here. So, I will, again, suggest that you remove absolutely each and every assumption and belief of yours while you are reading the actual words that I say, write, and use, here. That way you will not get so lost and so confused as you clearly are, here.

I will again suggest that you people, here, find out what is actually irrefutably True, which can only come from having already obtained the irrefutable proof, and then, and only then, say and write down your claims, here. If, and when, you do, then you will not be proved Wrong anywhere near as often as you are.

The Fact that you, desperately, have, and want others to adopt, your own personal meanings and/or definitions never even means that I have also, nor that I want any of you human beings to adopt absolutely any thing.

Now, and once again, what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life, can be very easily and very simply found, and thus obtained. How 'this' is done I have already explained, however what I will again suggest is that you refrain and just stop believing that what you perceive and/or believe to be 'true definitions' are, when in fact that are just your 'own', subjective, 'true definitions'.

Please do not forget that it is 'you' who is 'the one' having a great deal of trouble getting 'your own belief/s' accepted and agreed with, here.

'I', on the other hand, are just pointing out why 'you' are having so much trouble and issues, here.

You aren't really doing that.

Of course not, to you. And, this is just because you do not want to 'look at' what I am saying and pointing out. you only want to 'see' what you believe is already 'true'. you do not want to 'see' anything else, here.

Also, your own assumption and/or belief, here, of what I mean by 'objective' is not exactly Right.

It's not an assumption in the least. You said it yourself.

Here:

All definitions are subjective ones, however what makes a definition and objective one, and thus a definition that is actually irrefutable True is the exact same thing that makes up 'objectivity', itself. For those who are, still, not yet aware, it is 'that', which could be agreed with and accepted by every one, which is what is objective, and thus irrefutably True, in Life.

Emphasis is mine.

And, even though you emphasized 'it' can you really, still, not yet see 'the difference' from what you said and claimed from what I said, and wrote?

In other words, you use the word "objective" to mean "that which can be agreed with and accepted by everyone".

Once more, 'your own assumption and/or belief, here, of what I mean by 'objective' is not exactly Right'. But, there is no use to inform you of this because you believe, absolutely, otherwise. And, because you believe, absolutely, otherwise, you are not open to recognizing and learning what the actual Truth is, here.

As can be very clearly seen, here, again, instead of seeking out clarification, and thus clarity, itself, it much prefers to just rely on its own assumptions and already held beliefs to obtain 'knowledge' from.

So, to claim that 'it is not an assumption, in the least', is just another example of how 'this one' will believe things to be true, which are not even True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

It's an idiosyncratic meaning. Your very own. Pretty much noone except for you uses the word this way.

Yet it is 'this one definition', which no one could refute, here.

Obviously you have not spent any time at all actually being 'critical', and thinking about it.

Also, just because you are so insecure and not self-assured at all, here, and will only use meanings that others use, no matter how Wrong and/or utterly absurd they are, never ever means that 'the meaning/s' that you and/or others use fit in, perfectly, or even at all, with what is actually irrefutably True, and Right, in Life.

LOL When, or if, you ever do get to see, comprehend, and understand what I have been showing and pointing out, here, you will also understand just how foolish your own personal subjective views and beliefs have been, and are, here.

But, while you continue to believe otherwise you will never come to 'see' what has actually been happening and occurring, here.

But, this is totally understandable since you do not seek out and obtain clarification, and thus clarity, first.

Actually, I do seek out clarification. In fact, I made quite a bit of an effort trying to get you to clarify what you're saying. The problem is that I had to pressure you a bit too much in order to make you do that. And even then, you didn't really do a great job.

That you, still, do not know what I am saying, and meaning, further proves that you do not actually seek out to obtain actual clarification, and clarity, first.

Also, when you come to learn and understand 'the definition' for the 'problem' word, which fits in, perfectly, with the actual Truths, in Life, you will see how even, here, you are using words Wrongly.

If you tried it some time, you might learn, and see, just how beneficial being Truly open, honest, and curios is, and was, to you human beings.

The thread isn't about me.

I never ever thought it was, let alone suggested it nor saying and stating it anywhere.

What led you to assume and say such as thing as this, here?

It's also not about humans in general, Mr. Non-Human.

Why are 'you' 'now' presuming a gender?

Stick to the topic.

I have been, it is your own continual and assumptions and beliefs that are you leading 'you' completely astray, here.

Discuss the ideas.

I have. The idea, of yours, here, that 'morality is objective' I have only very minutely discussed because you are have a great deal of trouble getting past your distorted thinking and Wrong idea and beliefs that there are many 'minds', and 'objectivity', itself, is in relation to these so-claimed 'many minds' somehow.

I have also informed you that if you really do want to prove that 'morality is objective', then you first need to obtain an agreement and an acceptance of what the word 'morality' actually means and/or is in referring to, exactly, also.

But, like other things, here, you are not interested in discussing these ideas and are only wanting to get others to accept and believe what you do, here. Although what you accept and believe, here, does not fit in with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life.

If you can't do that, leave. Understand that everything negative you can say about others, I can very easily say about you.

But, I have not said any thing at all 'negative' about others. I have just expressed what you and others are doing, here. Now, if you want to 'see' that what you and others are doing, here, as being 'negative', then so be it. But, just because 'you' do some things never means that 'I' actually necessarily do 'the same'.

Now, 'the solution' to 'the Wrong way' you are showing, and proving, here, is to just stop what you are doing, and then just proceed in the completely different way, which I have been continually and constantly pointing out, and showing.

How about you take your own advice?

In 'what way', exactly, do you envision that 'I' am doing that would be better done in 'another way'?

If you do not answer and clarify, here, then why not, exactly?

Which would mean, and make, 'morality', itself, objective. Thus, aligning with exactly what 'it' is that you want to say and claim, here, right?

Not really.

In what part of what I just said and asked you, here, is what you call, 'not really'?

Are you 'not really' wanting to show that 'morality is objective'? Are you 'not really' understanding that when, in 'that sense' of the word, that any thing in 'the world' is objective'? And/or are you 'not really' understanding that 'that', in and of itself, would prove that 'morality', itself, is actually 'objective'? Or, are you just 'not really' understanding what 'it' is, that you want to say and claim, here?

Will you elaborate on what your words, 'not really', are even in relation to, exactly?

If no, then why not?

Do you prefer others, like you, just presume things, instead?

Great. So, 'morality is objective', [by "magnus anderson", and, "skepdick"]

Not really. Magnus and Skepdick are using one and the same expression to say two different things. Magnus is saying that morality is mind independent. Skepdick is saying that it exists. Two different things.

Okay. So, why are you two saying different things?

And, why are you two arriving at the exact same conclusion also, anyway?

What would it matter if you two are saying different things, while arriving at the exact same conclusion, if what you both of you are saying are both true, right, accurate, and correct?

Also, are you saying that what "skepdick" is saying is not true, right, accurate, nor correct?

If yes, then why not?

Is there any possibility that the 'thing' that you are saying could be false, wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect in any way at all? Or, to you, is this not even a possibility?

But, your own personal meaning for 'that word' is not 'idiosyncratic', to 'you', correct?

It is not.

Again, 'this' is just your personal and subjective view and belief, here.

And I've shown to you that it is not.

So, 'this one' believes that just because it says some thing is 'not idiosyncratic', and/or just because a dictionary has and/or uses a particular definition, then 'the meaning' that 'this one' has 'chosen to use' is, itself, has been 'shown' to be not so-called 'idiosyncratic'.

I would attempt, and achieve, if you were open, here. But, considering you are not open, then there is no use even trying.

You have the right to think that other people are closed minded even when they are not.

But I do not think that you people are what you Wrongly call 'closed-minded'. I also do not think that you people are what you call 'closed-minded' when you are not being what you call 'closed-minded'.

I only say and claim you people are 'closed' when you actually are 'being closed'.

I have also explained, exactly, how and why you are 'closed', when you are 'closed'.

That's your own right.

What do 'you' actually mean when 'you' say and claim, 'That is your 'own' right', exactly?

If you don't want to discuss the topic, you're free to leave. I am not going to beg you to stay.

I have discussed 'the topic', you obviously just do not want to discuss anything else than what you already believe is absolutely true, here.

[Age]

If only you knew.

I can say the same about you.

If only you knew.

And, when 'you' say, 'If only you knew', then what what you be talking about and referring to, exactly?

Now, if you, once again, do not answer and clarify, then why not?

Why do you not start with just, 'What is 'morality', exactly, first?' And, then see if you can accomplish agreement and acceptance of 'this', first?

I already did. It's in the OP.

So, if you 'already did', as you just claim, here, then did 'you' accomplish agreement and acceptance, first?

If no, then why not?

What is Wrong with your own personal and subjective definition of 'morality', itself?

you said and wrote, The term "morality" means "the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal".

Now, you never stipulated, nor said and wrote, that 'this meaning' is only what 'morality' means, to you, personally.

If you had done 'this', then every one would 'have to' agree with and accept 'this'. But, because you spoke and wrote like you are speaking, and writing, for every one, then 'this' is a huge reason of why 'you' are having such a 'hard time', here, now.

1. What even is the so-called 'highest goal'?

2. If the so-called 'highest goal' is in relation to just an individual, or to just a group of people, then you are back at 'subjectivity', again.

3. What the word, 'morality', means, to you, does not necessitate that your own personal and subjective meaning aligns with the actual 'objective meaning'.

4. you insisting that others take on, accept, and agree with your own personal and subjective meanings for words, here, will never ever work in proving whatever 'it' is that what you want to claim, here, is absolutely true, and right.

5. From the outset, if 'morality' actually meant some thing like you claim, here, then 'morality' would clearly be subjective. For the very obvious fact that different people have and use 'different, subjective, laws', which they all claim 'ought to be obeyed in order to maximize their chances of attaining their 'highest goal', which also may well be very different, and subjective.

Yet 'you' just claimed, to 'me', 'whether or not minds exist has no impact on the meaning that I am attaching, nor on the meaning that I should be attaching, to the word "objective".'

Are you able to see any contradiction of 'yours', here?

The fact that you think there's a contradiction does not mean there is one.

But I do not 'think' there is a contradiction. There is 'a contradiction' in you claiming that if some thing exists 'in mind', then 'that thing is 'not objective' and in your also claiming that 'whether or not minds exist has no impact on the meaning that I am, or should be, attaching to the word, 'objective'.

If you, still, can not see 'this contradiction', then okay.

In an attempt to discredit what they personally dislike, people often see contradictions when there are none.

What 'you' people, often, do has no bearing on what 'I' am actually, doing, here.

And, what even is 'it', exactly, which you believe 'I', supposedly, do not like, here?

Contradictions can be, and they very often are, illusory.

That you can not see 'a contradiction' does not necessitate that 'the contradiction' is 'illusory'.

I have presented 'your contradiction' above, here.

And, the very reason why you did not see it 'I', also, already know.

It's rampant on this forum. It's a fashionable disease to be mindlessly critical of everything.

And, you 'trying' so, so, so very hard to deflect, and deceive, here, is now is also a very common trait among you posters, here, when I just point out, show, and reveal the Wrong in what you posters say, and do, here.

You have to learn to distinguish between the truth value of a statement and the is/ought of the assigned meaning. In the above, you're addressing the truth value of the statement "Moral laws are mind independent". And even in that case, whether or not minds exist is irrelevant.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Well obviously if 'minds' do not exist, then 'this' could not be any more relevant.

you really do say and 'try to' claim some of the most outrageous and nonsensical things, here, "martin peter clarke".

The statement "Humans are unicorn independent" is saying that humans can exist even if no unicorns exist.

Are you 'now' 'trying to' say and claim that if 'mind/s', or what 'that word' is referring to, did not exist, then 'morality', itself, would still exist?

Because, if you are, then you are contradicting "yourself" once more.

It's obviously true, right?

Yes. But, the 'truth' of your statement, 'Humans are unicorn independent', actually counters and will end up refuting your claim about 'morality', itself, being mind independent'. But, 'we' are, still, a long, long way of getting to 'this point'.

But how can that be the case given that unicorns do not exist?

What does it matter?

you are, obviously, once again, assuming and believing things, which I have not said and meant, but which are leading you so far astray, here, I now wonder if I could ever get you back on track, here.

Well, it might be the case because the statement isn't saying that unicorns exist. It's merely saying that humans can exist without unicorns.

In the same exact way, the statement "Moral laws are mind independent" isn't saying that minds exist. It's merely saying that moral laws can exist without minds.

And, just as I have expressed before, 'we' will need to know what you mean by 'minds', and, 'morality', here.

If minds do not exist, as you say, a claim that is blatantly false; and if morality does exist; then it immediately follows that morality is mind independent.

Have you, really, still not yet understood the difference between the words, 'mind', and 'minds'?

So I am not really sure what you're trying to do here in this thread.

This has been blatantly clear.

You should be agreeing with me ( for wrong reasons, of course, but still . . . )

But, you have, again, and still, missed the mark, and 'the point', here.

Oh, and by the way, you own claim of what 'morality' is, itself, refutes the claim that 'morality' is 'mind independent'.

[Magnus Anderson]

But I did not miss 'this', (what you claim is one very important point), at all. As can be seen by 'my words' above, here, which have already addressed 'this very point'.

you claim that 'the writer' gets to 'choose the meaning/s', for words, but, as I have already pointed out, when I or others respond to you, here, in a forum, 'we' 'now' become 'the writers'. And, according to your own so-called 'logic' 'we', 'now', also become 'the ones' who get to 'choose' 'the meanings'. How come you missed 'this point', last time I addressed it?

Regardless of what you think, you have very clearly missed the point.

You're not applying my logic, merely your misunderstanding of it.

You either want to see that or you don't.

So, in other words you want every one, here, to just accept and agree with your own personal and subjective provided 'meanings/s'.

You can't evaluate the truth value of a statement without first understanding it. And you can't understand it if you're not interpreting its words the way they are meant to be interpreted.

You seriously need a lesson on how language works. But you're refusing to take it, believing yourself to be far more knowledgable than you actually are ( everything else being just a projection of yours. )

And as I've already shown to you, the meaning that I'm assigning to the word "objective" is not an idiosyncratic one. It is YOURS that is idiosyncratic. Not that it matters much, but you seem to be obsessing over it for some reason.

I have already done so, and which is the very reason why I pointed out that 'minds' do not exist, and that you would have to provide a definition, and/or a meaning for the 'morality' word, as well.

I've defined both words long before you came.

Read the thread.

2. If I 'have to' work with 'your definitions', and 'have to' accept that, then I can just start a thread, and then you will 'have to' work with 'my definitions', and will 'have to' just accept that, right?

Yes, but completely irrelevant.

If yes, then there is no wonder the people, in the days when this is being written, were, relatively, always bickering, in conflict, and fighting with each other. There is no wonder there was so much warring and killing of each other.

Actually, you are the one bickering here. You just don't see it being so self-absorbed.

There is zero substance in your posts. All you do is mindlessly object and defend yourself with the most vacuous statements you can think of.

3. The sooner you learn, and understand, that I do not 'have to' with your own personal and subjective meanings and definitions, then the sooner you will realize and learn that what you assume and believe is not necessarily True and Right, in Life, at all.

And the sooner you learn how language works, the sooner you will stop doing what you're doing.

true definitions

There are no true and false meanings.

But, there is no use to inform you of this because you believe, absolutely, otherwise. And, because you believe, absolutely, otherwise, you are not open to recognizing and learning what the actual Truth is, here.

Curious. It's of no use to define a term I've asked you to define more than once. But it's perfectly meaningful to spam this thread with your pointless verbiage.

How about you FINALLY define the term instead of mindlessly complaining?

As can be very clearly seen, here, again, instead of seeking out clarification, and thus clarity, itself, it much prefers to just rely on its own assumptions and already held beliefs to obtain 'knowledge' from.

The reason I've stopped seeking clarification from you is because you've shown yourself to be a terrible interlocutor. You never take that into account because you believe yourself to be perfect ( while pretending to be humble. )

You have to understand that other people aren't obliged to read your posts and respond to them. Everything you say can be very easily ignored. Be grateful that anyone is paying attention to you at all. As far as I'm concerned, you're embarrassingly clueless. Appreciate the fact that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Also, just because you are so insecure and not self-assured at all, here, and will only use meanings that others use, no matter how Wrong and/or utterly absurd they are, never ever means that 'the meaning/s' that you and/or others use fit in, perfectly, or even at all, with what is actually irrefutably True, and Right, in Life.

And you have yet to learn how language works.

There are no true and false meanings.

Again, 'this' is just your personal and subjective view and belief, here.

It is not, regardless of how much you'd like it to be.

I'm wondering whether you even know what the word "idiosyncratic" means.

So, 'this one' believes that just because it says some thing is 'not idiosyncratic', and/or just because a dictionary has and/or uses a particular definition, then 'the meaning' that 'this one' has 'chosen to use' is, itself, has been 'shown' to be not so-called 'idiosyncratic'.

Correct.

And the fact that you don't understand this is bothersome given how much of a stubborn ass you are.

I have discussed 'the topic', you obviously just do not want to discuss anything else than what you already believe is absolutely true, here.

Not true.

As I said, if you're convinced that I am not open to opposing ideas, you're free to leave this thread.

I didn't make this thread so that every moron can share his idiotic belief that the other side is closed-minded.

[Magnus Anderson]

But, because you spoke and wrote like you are speaking, and writing, for every one, then 'this' is a huge reason of why 'you' are having such a 'hard time', here, now.

That's a pleasant simplification, but it isn't reality.

2. If the so-called 'highest goal' is in relation to just an individual, or to just a group of people, then you are back at 'subjectivity', again.

5. From the outset, if 'morality' actually meant some thing like you claim, here, then 'morality' would clearly be subjective. For the very obvious fact that different people have and use 'different, subjective, laws', which they all claim 'ought to be obeyed in order to maximize their chances of attaining their 'highest goal', which also may well be very different, and subjective.

I'm glad you have an opinion but it just happens to be wrong.

There is 'a contradiction' in you claiming that if some thing exists 'in mind', then 'that thing is 'not objective' and in your also claiming that 'whether or not minds exist has no impact on the meaning that I am, or should be, attaching to the word, 'objective'.

If you, still, can not see 'this contradiction', then okay.

You'd have to do a lot more than that in order to show the contradiction.

And, just as I have expressed before, 'we' will need to know what you mean by 'minds', and, 'morality', here.

If you need to know it, then get to know it.

I have already defined these terms.

But, you have, again, and still, missed the mark, and 'the point', here.

I can be excused when responding to someone who has a lot of trouble making his point.