> as I agree with Hume, you can't go from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement. Nitpick: that's not what Hume said. He did not say that one cannot derive

> as I agree with Hume, you can't go from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement. Nitpick: that's not what Hume said. He did not say that one cannot derive "ought" from "is", he merely pointed out that philosophers had this curious habit of starting arguments making reasonable factual "is" statements, and suddenly transitioning into "ought" statements as if the factual statements entailed these "oughts", but that this was a non-sequitur without justification.