What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

I've got a lot of catching up to do, but in the meantime I'll simply point out that you have failed to answer the rock objection. It isn't that subjective accounts do exist, but that objective accounts do not exist. The question which you were trying to answer with posting the dictionary definition was to show that harm has an objective definition. I'll grant you for the sake of argument that taking the top off a mountain is in some sense damage, but damage by itself is not harm. Damage has to be bad or else from your own example that taking the top off a mountain is damage, and damage even if it isn't bad is harm, then you've refuted your own axiom that harm is bad because in the case of the mountain top, we have a case of harm that is not bad. For the mountain top example to fly, you have to show that it is both damage and that it is bad, one without the other doesn't work. So, ultimately you have to show that taking the top off a mountain is bad, or your argument fails. You haven't in any sense shown that taking the top off a mountain is bad and I'm highly skeptical of your being able to do so without appealing to subjectivity or begging the question. Maybe you're more creative than I can imagine and you can show this without nicking either Charybdis or Scylla. So far, however, you haven't shown it. Until you do, simply repeating yourself is an empty promise as doing so doesn't feed the bulldog. And the reasons why it doesn't were laid out for you two posts ago. So, in spite of your accusations that I'm not engaging, and my current good faith efforts to address what you see as the cause of my failure to engage, you yourself are demonstrably not engaging. That's more of a problem for you than it is for me, as I don't have to engage if what you present isn't logically sound. I have and do intend to continue to engage by responding and pointing to your errors, but you yourself need to engage as well, not simply because it's the right thing to do but also because you are making a positive claim here and failing to engage the objections simply means you fail. So, start engaging and stop repeating. I will attempt to do likewise, but seeing as you haven't adequately addressed my prior objections, instead casting them as straw men which you feel proud to have defeated, I don't actually need to provide further rebuttals because you haven't adequately addressed the rebuttals lying on the table. Your failing to engage simply insures your ultimate failure.

Now, I haven't completely read either of your past two posts, so if I missed something and failed to engage with my prior two attempts to leap into the breach, I apologize. I will get to it, and the papers on intuitionism, but likely not until Tuesday. In the meantime, I suggest you contribute some relevant links if you are able and show how taking the top off a mountain is objectively bad. Failing the latter, your argument fails. My brief glimpse at the SEP page suggests there is more to intuitionism that lies along avenues that you haven't argued, and that your representation of intuitionalism, if that is your argument, is seriously lacking in substance. You need to fix that and the other errors if you want to be successful here. So, I will attempt to engage, but you need to do so as well. The signs and admissions on your part so far indicate that you haven't. If that continues, I may simply lose interest.