Philosophy Now Forum

Before they were known about, there were no decomposable fundamental particles.

And therefore, there are moral facts.

Sorted. Game over. Moral objectivists win the argument.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 2:15 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:43 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:42 pm There is no morality proper

Is this a Philosophy forum or what?

Prove it! So that we can close this thread.

I just did, but you are too dull to see it.
Close yourself.

Yes, I saw you mark your own homework.

But that's now how it works.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 2:39 pm Before they were known about, there were no decomposable fundamental particles.

Fundamental particles are theoretical entities. They are useful for grounding theories and making theories work.

We don't actually know if electrons and fundamental particles exist, but we've defined them in the standard model and we talk about them so they take on an ontological existence in social discourse.

For all we know there's a much better theory out there which accounts for and explains the exact same experiences without refering to fundamental particles in any way.

For all we know string theory will falsify our current model which would mean that particles never existed to begin with - strings will then take on an ontological existence!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 2:39 pm And therefore, there are moral facts.

Yes. EXACTLY like electrons and fundamental particles: they take on an ontological existence in social discourse.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 2:39 pm Sorted. Game over. Moral objectivists win the argument.

It only took you 469 pages to figure it out.

Ah. Here's the bollocks argument in all its paltry glory.

P1 If we talk about things, they 'take on an ontological existence [?] in social discourse'.
P2 We talk about moral rightness and wrongness.
C Therefore, moral rightness and wrongness 'take on an ontological existence [?} in social discourse'.

What a load of utter tripe.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:21 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 2:15 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:43 pm
Is this a Philosophy forum or what?

Prove it! So that we can close this thread.

I just did, but you are too dull to see it.
Close yourself.

Yes, I saw you mark your own homework.

But that's now how it works.,

"now how " how now brown cow?
who now, what now, fuckwit!

If you think there is such a thing as "morality proper", then the burden of proof is on you.

First define it.
Then describe it!
Then exemplify it.

WTF is "morality proper" except an empty phrase?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 5:59 pm If you think there is such a thing as "morality proper", then the burden of proof is on you.

Bullshit.

Negative claims carry as much of a burden as positive claims.

Otherwise... There is no brain in that head of yours, but there's no burden on me...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:13 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 5:59 pm If you think there is such a thing as "morality proper", then the burden of proof is on you.

Bullshit.

Negative claims carry as much of a burden as positive claims.

Otherwise... There is no brain in that head of yours, but there's no burden on me...

First define it.
Then describe it!
Then exemplify it.

What are you so scared of?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:26 pm Ah. Here's the bollocks argument in all its paltry glory.

P1 If we talk about things, they 'take on an ontological existence [?] in social discourse'.
P2 We talk about moral rightness and wrongness.
C Therefore, moral rightness and wrongness 'take on an ontological existence [?} in social discourse'.

What a load of utter tripe.

Dumb. Fucking. Idiot.. Nothing I said constitutes "an argument".

It was a true observation.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:24 pm First define it.
Then describe it!
Then exemplify it.

What are you so scared of?

I am scared of my time being wasted by idiot-philosphers.

Prove that you are not a time-wasting idiot philosopher by defining definition, describing description and exemplify exemplification.

Show me how it all works.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:25 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:26 pm Ah. Here's the bollocks argument in all its paltry glory.

P1 If we talk about things, they 'take on an ontological existence [?] in social discourse'.
P2 We talk about moral rightness and wrongness.
C Therefore, moral rightness and wrongness 'take on an ontological existence [?} in social discourse'.

What a load of utter tripe.

Dumb. Fucking. Idiot.. Nothing I said constitutes "an argument".

True.
But then nothing you ever say constitutes an argument.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:29 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:24 pm First define it.
Then describe it!
Then exemplify it.

What are you so scared of?

Show me how it all works.

Here's how.
First define it.
Then describe it!
Then exemplify it.

What are you so scared of?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:46 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:25 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:26 pm Ah. Here's the bollocks argument in all its paltry glory.

P1 If we talk about things, they 'take on an ontological existence [?] in social discourse'.
P2 We talk about moral rightness and wrongness.
C Therefore, moral rightness and wrongness 'take on an ontological existence [?} in social discourse'.

What a load of utter tripe.

Dumb. Fucking. Idiot.. Nothing I said constitutes "an argument".

True.
But then nothing you ever say constitutes an argument.

Obviously. Arguing is for idiot philosophers.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:47 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:29 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:24 pm First define it.
Then describe it!
Then exemplify it.

What are you so scared of?

Show me how it all works.

Here's how.
First define it.
Then describe it!
Then exemplify it.

What are you so scared of?

Don't tell me - show me.

Lead by example.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:48 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:46 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:25 pm
Dumb. Fucking. Idiot.. Nothing I said constitutes "an argument".

True.
But then nothing you ever say constitutes an argument.

Obviously. Arguing is for idiot philosophers.

DUH

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:48 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:47 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:29 pm

Show me how it all works.

Here's how.
First define it.
Then describe it!
Then exemplify it.

What are you so scared of?

Don't tell me - show me.

Lead by example.

Define: there is no definition for an empty idea
Describe: "Morality proper" is a made up phrase,
Describe: invented by VA to look pompous and important, and apparently supported by Skedickhead.