(March 22, 2026 at 7:17 pm)Disagreeable Wrote:(March 21, 2026 at 4:54 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: No, I'm not. Please stop making things up and saying that I'm saying them. Those strawmen have got no brains.
You did say that moral agreement is just what's fashionable, for instance.
No, I didn't. I'm denying its existence. I said that a long time back when I first said that there was no evidence for 'moral facts'.
Quote:I can't be bothered going and digging up all the quotes of you saying the things I said that you said. I'm not strawmanning you. But you *are* begging the question a lot.
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
I can't beg a question by saying that you've provided no evidence.
Quote:Quote:I'm saying that there's no agreement. Historically, spatially, and culturally, people have believed that wildly different things were moral. Just like the drunken archer, whose scatter of arrows are not in agreement.
Obviously sometimes people agree on morality. So there is some agreement. You're just discounting it and saying "That doesn't count." What is the actual argument for any apparent agreement not being real agreement? Why is it just what's fashionable?
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion.
If it's so obvious, then I'm certain that you'll have no difficulty providing evidence rather than yet more argument. Kindly try to correct for the fact that the overwhelming majority of moral systems were imposed at gunpoint by a relatively small portion of Western Europe. The only thing that's obvious to me is that we don't follow our own relatively flexible moral precepts.


