Search Results
6/26/2025, 5:59:09 PM
>>17793239
>Nope.
Yes.
>It would be a moral fact first, possibly (but not necessarily) moral judgement second.
This is another distinction without a difference because the only difference between those is the latter is the expression of the former. You are an incredibly sophistical idiot.
>Cool, now go back to spamming diaper fetish edits of Vegeta on /a/.
You're projecting your own degenerate atheist activities
>The proposition in question is "there are mind-independent moral facts that depend on some further fact(s)".
No, the proposition would be "you ought not X", but actually isn't for reasons I explained that were too difficult for you to understand because it was above a kindergarten reading level.
>Nope.
Yes.
>It would be a moral fact first, possibly (but not necessarily) moral judgement second.
This is another distinction without a difference because the only difference between those is the latter is the expression of the former. You are an incredibly sophistical idiot.
>Cool, now go back to spamming diaper fetish edits of Vegeta on /a/.
You're projecting your own degenerate atheist activities
>The proposition in question is "there are mind-independent moral facts that depend on some further fact(s)".
No, the proposition would be "you ought not X", but actually isn't for reasons I explained that were too difficult for you to understand because it was above a kindergarten reading level.
Page 1