Sphairon,
I apologize. I thought the post I was thinking about was in the Rothbard v. Hume thread. Though undoubtedly that thread brought it up, but it was this thread that introduced more detail. Here was my response.
Essentially the two methods that clear away the imaginary construct of the is/ought purely analytic, non-grounded abstract, those two methods in meaningful substance are founded upon “is-ness”. As Jack pointed out in his post.
Of course to maintain the target of this thread, what I say above is essentially my theorizing.
- thanks.