What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

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.

Oh really?

You expect me to tell you what makes murder wrong, but you don't expect yourself to tell us what makes this color red.

If you don't know the answer - say so. There is a difference between knowing THAT the color is red and knowing WHY the color is red.

Not knowing WHY this is red doesn't preclude it from being a fact THAT this is red.

square-xxl.png

[Harbal]

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.

Oh really?

You expect me to tell you what makes murder wrong, but you don't expect yourself to tell us what makes this color red.

What I expect is that you justify your accusation of double standards.

If you don't know the answer - say so. There is a difference between knowing THAT the color is red and knowing WHY the color is red.

Not knowing WHY this is red doesn't preclude it from being a fact THAT this is red.

It is a fact that light comes in various wavelengths, and it is also a fact that human beings perceive different wavelengths as different colours. Yet another fact is that we tend to give names to the various colours we are able to perceive. You can now tell me what I have got wrong, what I have left out, and what any of it has to do with morality.

[Skepdick]

It is a fact that light comes in various wavelengths, and it is also a fact that human beings perceive different wavelengths as different colours.

I didn't ask you about wavelengths or light. I know that the wavelength of light reflected is about 620 to 750 nanometers.

I asked you what makes the color red. The color has been red long before we had theoretical physics to give us a theory of light.

Surely you understand the context of these two questions is different?

The former question is in the context of humans. The latter question is in the context of physics.

Yet another fact is that we tend to give names to the various colours we are able to perceive.

As we do for the various crimes we are able to perceive.

You can now tell me what I have got wrong, what I have left out, and what any of it has to do with morality.

I don't think so. Try answering my question. Not your misunderstanding of my question.

[Harbal]

You can now tell me what I have got wrong, what I have left out, and what any of it has to do with morality.

I don't think so. Try answering my question. Not your misunderstanding of my question.

I don't know if you have a valid point to make, because your style of communication is atrocious. I don't mind trading insults with you, but I don't find you useful for anything else.

[Skepdick]

You can now tell me what I have got wrong, what I have left out, and what any of it has to do with morality.

I don't think so. Try answering my question. Not your misunderstanding of my question.

I don't know if you have a valid point to make, because your style of communication is atrocious. I don't mind trading insults with you, but I don't find you useful for anything else.

What you've quoted isn't an insult.

It's an objective analysis of the problem and why communication is breaking down as a direct consequence of your actions!

You answered a completely different question to the one I asked you.

That's not about my "attrocious communication style" - that's entirely about your attrocious comprehension.

[Age]

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.

LOL

you could NOT of have DISTORTED 'this', NOR TWISTED 'this' AROUND, ANYMORE.

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"

But 'you' are NOT the 'disagreeable' one here.

It is just a LOT of what 'you' SAY and CLAIM that can NOT be AGREED WITH.

As you KEEP SHOWING and PROVING True here.

you ARE ALSO SHOWING and PROVING that you ARE COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of even ANSWERING the QUESTIONS that you CLAIM ARE STUPID, LOL because the ANSWERS TO 'them' are SUPPOSEDLY 'obvious'.

[Harbal]

That's not about my "attrocious communication style" - that's entirely about your attrocious comprehension.

Either way, I find trying to communicate with you pointless.

[Skepdick]

Either way, I find trying to communicate with you pointless.

It's difficult to get to the point when you keep sabotaging communication for sure...

[Harbal]

Either way, I find trying to communicate with you pointless.

It's difficult to get to the point when you keep sabotaging communication for sure...

Like I said; totally pointless.

[Skepdick]

Either way, I find trying to communicate with you pointless.

It's difficult to get to the point when you keep sabotaging communication for sure...

Like I said; totally pointless.

Again, I find myself having to explain the difference between THAT and WHY.

We agree THAT it's pointless.

WHY is it pointless - you keep sabbotaging it.

[Harbal]

It's difficult to get to the point when you keep sabotaging communication for sure...

Like I said; totally pointless.

Again, I find myself having to explain the difference between THAT and WHY.

We agree THAT it's pointless.

WHY is it pointless - you keep sabbotaging it.

I have nothing more to say to you.

[Skepdick]

Like I said; totally pointless.

Again, I find myself having to explain the difference between THAT and WHY.

We agree THAT it's pointless.

WHY is it pointless - you keep sabbotaging it.

I have nothing more to say to you.

I've heard something like that before...

For when you decide to get back to the conversation...

If the question "What makes murder wrong?" requires an answer then the question "What makes 720nm light red?" also requires an answer.

[Peter Holmes]

To repeat, the dick-for brains is an unpleasant, intellectually-challenged, attention-seeking and - as it happens - self-confessed troll.

Note to self. Add dishonest - like IC, ignores inconvenient refutations. Self! Pay attention!

[Skepdick]

To repeat, the dick-for brains is an unpleasant, intellectually-challenged, attention-seeking and - as it happens - self-confessed troll.

Note to self. Add dishonest - like I̶C̶me, ignores inconvenient refutations. Self! Pay attention!

Fixed it for you.

You've been ignoring refutations of years. But why should refutation bother anybody who rejects the wrongness of murder? In for a penny - in for a pound

Pay attention TO self!

[Harbal]

Again, I find myself having to explain the difference between THAT and WHY.

We agree THAT it's pointless.

WHY is it pointless - you keep sabbotaging it.

I have nothing more to say to you.

I've heard something like that before...

For when you decide to get back to the conversation...

If the question "What makes murder wrong?" requires an answer then the question "What makes 720nm light red?" also requires an answer.