Seeing as how actual criticism would offer various untried solutions to the problem at hand.

To me it seems as if he's going on a tangent.

There's NO SOLUTION when the entire question is build on an INCORRECT FRAMEWORK

Elaborate.

the question has to be amended first, you vapid ignoramus.

do you see anything wrong with this question???

because there are NUMEROUS things wrong with it

how is a uestion wrong

^

It was conceived in the mind of a charlatan who has NEVER READ PHILOSOPHY

the uestion isn't the answer

There are no bad or wrong questions.

also, I'm leaing stuff out because some of my keys don't work on my keyboard

How are you still on this Otter?

He sounds very upset about something quite trivial.

The question is meant to be broad, the dichotomy between objective-based morality and subjective-based morality.

What is the difference between a cockroach's 2nd stomach and their cold-blooded exoskeleton?

is a pretty bad question

because it MAKES NO BIOLOGICAL SENSE

well irma didn't ask a uestion about biology

the same way her question is bad because it completely misrepresents philosophical concepts.

And how does that relate at all towards morality.

You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand the question.

IT'S A FUCKING METAPHOR YOU IDIOT

kek I know

Statistically you would be in the wrong in asserting it's a bad question.

WRONG.

Making no sense does not mean the same as misrepresentation.

You do not understand what is WRONG with the question

You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand the question.

UTILITARIAN ETHICS ARE NOT RELATIVIST FIRST OF ALL

Nobody else had problems processing it.

video just leaked of otter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7smLPz2GY

WHY WOULD YOU EVEN LUMP THOSE TWO CATEGORIES TOGETHER

I didn't, it's slashed.

BECAUSE YOU ARE DEBATING WITH PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING

As opposed to objective morality.

THERE IS NO "OBJECTIVE MORALITY"

Look at the fallacies dripping off of this person.

IT'S CALLED DEONTOLOGY

WHICH YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND CONCEPTUALLY

Utilitarian arguments for morality are often mixed with subjective arguments, in that utilitarian is subjective to material conditions.

You're getting very twisted over this.

Calm down Otter.

^

UTILITARIAN ARGUMENTS ARE CONSEQUENTIALIST

It is never that serious.

Turn off your caps lock.

HOW ARE YOU EVEN DEFENDING THIS LEVEL OF IGNORANCE

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE

THOSE ARE EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONCERNS

NOT ETHICAL CONCERNS

Because practically smashing your keyboard and typing in all caps does not help you out.

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY

@εïз irma εïз

Calm down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7smLPz2GY

otter in new york

who cares about the specifics if people understand the question

if at the end of the day it all means the same thing why bother with the loose ends

BECAUSE THEY ARE APPLYING EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONCERNS TO ETHICS

WHICH MAKES NO SENSE

Because then he wouldn't have a reason to go off on a tangent.

IT DOESN'T APPLY

Justin, the word you're looking for is strawman.

THE WHOLE FRAMEWORK BETRAYS A TOTAL MISCOMPREHENSION OF PHILOSOPHY

IT'S NOT A STRAWMAN

Turn off caps lock

@εïз irma εïз I am not "trolling you" or "shitposting"

I was afraid of being incorrect. @εïз irma εïз

I am pointing out a fatal misunderstanding of ethics

Was thinking of that word however

Can you not indulge yourself in some mental gymnastics or flawed theoretical questions? @Deleted User

Being afraid of incorrect will turn you into something like Otter.

I love being incorrect

@CrowGoCaw listen here, you little shit, I have a doctorate in this field.

It's not mental gymnastics

It's a complete misunderstanding of ethics.

It means an opportunity to learn

see

just like a said

Well now that you cleared that up you're in the right

But you're going on about loose ends,

and just because EVERYONE misunderstood does not makei t correct.

Take the otterpill.

Carry on @Deleted User

WOW EVERYONE DIDNT UNDERSTAND AND CONTINUED TO SPEAK IGNORANTLY

Is otter a furry

IT MUST BE OKAY!

the question is interpreted perfectly as intended by others who have observed it.

eurofags like when someone is a scholar

but they don't care about proof

gay

no u

fuck

Who and why the fuck has a green role

Otter could very well be a furry.

It was not interpreted perfectly