Recent content by VirOptimus

Neither 1 or 2 is true or supported in the first.

To have an moral agency and an opinion on what is moraly preferable.

You dont seem to understand what a moral stance is.

Ahahaha, no. You really dont know formal logic. They are not valid, in fact they are cringeworthy. And you still dont understand the authority problem.

I have never said people stop having moral stances, quite the contrary. An moral agent will always have a moral stance. It in no way support the notion of an objective morality.

Yes, thats what I said, young people have moral stances. It really doesnt support your imagined ”points”.

Your "evidence" only say that very young people have moral stances (which is to be expected as humans are moral agents). Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I know because I dont know "objective morals". You again dont understand the very basics what non-objective (or objective for that matter) morality entails.

If morality was like maths you should be able to do formal logical statements about morality. So go ahead. No, its not, its telling you that you are in way over your head. Dunning-Kruger in action.

I'm not responsible for your education. Its very basic to understand what a non-onjective morality entails.

But I said you shouldnt. As you dont understand math you are not in a position to use it as a comparison.

Hope springs eternal! :)

Capital punishment is barbaric and has no place in modern civilization.

No, you are in error.

You should stop using math as an example as you obviously dont know math. Have you even studied calculus? Ever made a math proof? And you just keep arguing not objective. Hilarious.