4 ms·

>Haha, seriously? You think that reading all those pages would help me understand that there is such a thing as a valuer absent the valuer? Like, reading will h

>Haha, seriously? You think that reading all those pages would help me understand that there is such a thing as a valuer absent the valuer? Like, reading will help with accepting a logical contradiction as truth? >fortunately, that's no reason to stay ignorant? Do you see the irony? You really need to read more about intrinsic value before you dismiss it. Your arguments have been made and debated in academia, some of them have been refuted, and some of them are still being argued. Most of what you're saying is exactly as convincing as someone who argues that God must exist because nothing can exist without a cause. Also given how grayed out most of your responses are, maybe consensus isn't self evidently preferable.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Do you see the irony? Nope, there isn't any. > You really need to read more about intrinsic value before you dismiss it. Nope, I don't think I do. But feel free to make a concise argument as to how I am wrong. > Your arguments have been made and debated in academia, some of them have been refuted, and some of them are still being argued. By anyone serious, or just theologians? The fact that something is "debated in academia" does not really mean anything, unfortunately. > Most of what you're saying is exactly as convincing as someone who argues that God must exist because nothing can exist without a cause. Well, except that the gap in that argument can trivially be shown in one sentence. > Also given how grayed out most of your responses are, maybe consensus isn't self evidently preferable. More importantly, it shows that consensus is all that ultimately matters, whether that is good or not, which was exactly my point.
- learc83 8y ago
  I'm not going to rehash the last century of metaethical debate with you, and you seem to be under the impression that only theologians disagree with you. Your entire argument is just a half formed version of metaethical moral relativism, which is a minority view among philosophers. Your views are demonstrably not self-evident.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

> Do you see the irony? Nope, there isn't any. > You really need to read more about intrinsic value before you dismiss it. Nope, I don't think I do. But feel free to make a concise argument as to how I am wrong. > Your arguments have been made and debated in academia, some of them have been refuted, and some of them are still being argued. By anyone serious, or just theologians? The fact that something is "debated in academia" does not really mean anything, unfortunately. > Most of what you're saying is exactly as convincing as someone who argues that God must exist because nothing can exist without a cause. Well, except that the gap in that argument can trivially be shown in one sentence. > Also given how grayed out most of your responses are, maybe consensus isn't self evidently preferable. More importantly, it shows that consensus is all that ultimately matters, whether that is good or not, which was exactly my point.

learc83 8y ago
I'm not going to rehash the last century of metaethical debate with you, and you seem to be under the impression that only theologians disagree with you. Your entire argument is just a half formed version of metaethical moral relativism, which is a minority view among philosophers. Your views are demonstrably not self-evident.