It’s an objective fact that Dave Brubeck is the greatest musician ever. To the extent that other musicians fail to be Dave Brubeck, they are amoralists and statists.
Isn’t that a question of asethics and not of morality?
sorry, lil, i have to sign off, but i want to come back to this.
dont let me forget.
Of course, but both are questions of valuation.
No worries, nir. Catch you later.
Of course; it’s derivable from the nature of pianos!
Haha. What a ‘clever’ piece of sarcasm…
Yes but asethics and morality are distinctly different.
Nonsense. All value is subjective.
All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective. All value is subjective.
At least we got through to someone..
Oh, it’s zefreak the little troll. Did you answer my questions ? Well, of course, you are under no moral obligation to answer…
Yes, but they are also similar: importantly so, with reference to nirgrahamUK’s example. I’m saying that his comparison is inappropriate, because he’s trying to prove a naturally subjective statement (murder is wrong) incoherent by comparing it to a naturally objective statement (the cat on the mat). I’m saying, it makes more sense to compare it to another naturally subjective statement (roses are beautiful).
I don’t know what “honest” means, sonny. Care to explain it ?
It seems like you are trying to sneak asethics into this debate. ‘Roses are beautiful’ is a statement completely separate from ‘murder is wrong’ or ’ the cat on the mat’
No?
zefreak, you forgot to put a space before your question mark ?
It’s aesthetics, and can you explain how the statement “murder is wrong” is more closely related to “the cat is on the mat” rather than “roses are beautiful”?
Two of them are valuations, and one of them isn’t.
I would say “the cat is on the mat” is a statement completely separate from “murder is wrong” or “roses are beautiful”.
Thanks. I see you two admit to being intellectually bankrupt.
The thing is, the little zefreak troll said I was not interested in ‘honest’ discourse - however, honesty happens to be a moral concept, and as such it is purely subjective. The troll has no way to know if I’m honest or not, as per his own theory, but he doesn’t seem to be smart enough to grasp the consequences of his own theory. Oh well…
honest : honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair: an honest person.
Fairness ? Subjective nonsense.
Honest typically means forthright, sincere. It is, in this sense, purely descriptive.
Because it is a quality that you rarely exhibit in discourse, there is little of value to be had for me in pursuing one.