If it wasn't for religion

[Acrobat]

Do you understand?

-and, no.

They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.

Goodness and badness are no more the material properties themselves than the elephant in your mind is an actual elephant somehow crammed into your skull.

I'm guessing that you don't realize this..but you're bickering about linguistics with me, not morality, at this point.

I am picturing an elephant in my hall, there’s no actual elephant in my hall, this elephant purely exists in my mind, but not externally in the hall.

The elephant here is just a mental image. In order for it to be real, it has to be a referent to an elephant that’s externally in the hall.

When speaking of goodness and badness, your arguments keep shifting, moving back and forth, between an elephant in the hall, and an elephant not in the hall, but purely an image of one in our minds.

You can’t seem to decide whether good and bad are as real as the elephant at the zoo, or just one that exists purely in my minds imagination and conception, like the one I’m picturing now.

If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps when you say the holocaust is bad, the real referent here is the holocaust, and its historical facts about it’s impact and consequences? If so, calling it bad, doesn’t provide any additional historical facts about it, than just calling it the holocaust.