Otter has transcended autism

High IQ

It was a discussion of the blind leading the blind.

@Doctor Anon

oof

I see no reason for you to go off on the idea that the question in it of itself may be incorrect or disorganized in a manner that you don't see fit.

It would appear Lazydaze gave him the role.

and just because the blind can lead the blind in circles does not make it okay.

Lazydaze is otterpilled. I think he was in the right to give him that role.

To better indulge his fantasy.

subjective/objective is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL debate

NOT AN ETHICAL ONE.

But ultimately criticizing the question provides no answer to the actual question.

Get it through your fucking head @εïз irma εïз

Wait is the high IQ not meant to be a sarcastic joke role

That's only avoiding and prolonging.

You can apply this to questions towards consciousness, religion, and so on.

A yellow bar over a post does not assign it any special significance Otter.

YOU CANNOT ANSWER A QUESTION BASED ON A FLAWED PREMISE

Of course you can't,

THERE'S NO SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE DISTINCTION IN ETHICS

that still dosen't mean you can't at least give some feasible answer.

?warn @Deleted User Rule 3

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***ostentatiousotter#3068 has been warned.***

Useless mods are useless

HOW CAN I NOT BE IN A FIT OF RAGE WHEN EVERYONE IS DEFENDING TOTAL IGNORANCE

You just triggered the most intelligent and cultured man in Europe.

I need to read the rules again lmao

Do you have any idea what you've done?

What Zexy said

He has a PhD br0

They are literally saying it's okay to blissfully ignore that the entire FRAMEWORK OF THE QUESTION is INCORRECT and someone should STILL TRY TO ANSWER IT. NO NO NO NO NO NO

I personally believe that Otter here has perhaps interpreted the question in such a way that it's creating a paradox.

There's nothing to answer.

You can answer the question, there is always some way to answer a question.

It's very simple

Can't wait until otter reaches honored citizen

!rank @Deleted User

Even if considered incorrect, there's nothing that can disprove or prove that answer.

It's just there,

as a answer.

RELATIVISM in ethics typical refers to CULTURAL RELATIVISM

it has nothing to do with utilitarian premises

those ARE UNIVERSAL arguments based on A CONSEQUENTIAL premise

what irma wants to argue for is DEONTOLOGICAL ethics

@Deleted User if you want to emphasize something, use *italics*

Not CAPS

Every post a Ben Shapiro YouTube video title.

which she mislabeled as ***objective***

furthermore, there are many kinds of ***deontological*** arguments

so why did she single out ONE particular form of consequentialism?

Ben Shapiro sodomizes a homeless person with a broken glass bottle

yet she did not single out one particular kind of deontological argument?

all of your obserations are irreleant

the question is wrong on so many levels.

If you fags want a serious argument @Deleted User @εïз irma εïз go to <#452955229227319306> where rule 8 applies

I don't think Otter is capable.

I wouldn't want to humiliate him further.

You've just been utterly humilated

I'm just wondering

I've demonstrated that your question is flawed on every level.

To be fair 90% of the humiliation was your effort. I shouldn't be taking the credit.

if there was literally no sort of link between relativism and ulltiarism

Not even in the slightest?

Whomst the fuck is Mr. Turbofister

hi I'm new here. youre probably already aware but I would like to mention the proposed "raid" that is going to happen on several servers that listed this one as well https://archive.fo/AfVxc#selection-1032.26-1032.27

It reveals that you conflate ethics and epistemology, and you are unaware of ethical categories, and lastly you have no understanding of what relativism means in ethics.

A good name for dwarf characters is Stonechode Hammerfister.

There's ***three*** fundamental problems with your question

If you ever decide to play D&D or anything.

and yet I am the humiliated one here?

I've just exposed you as a charlatan.

This entire situation to me

is a headache.

You can borrow my nom de guerre.

I know qmaps was down all day

The whole sentence is constructed with a deeply embarrassing solecism that reveals someone on the brink of 20 who has developed a ludicrously high opinion of herself while still having failed to master the grammar and vocabulary of her own native language.

We're all very impressed.

In other news

If you rephrase the question correctly, then I'll bestow you with my knowledge of ethics and particular philosophers of interest.

That would be the first time you would have said anything of value.

But I'm fairly certain it's a wild goose chase.

The FISA Documents are being declassified tommorow, about 20 pages or so during a press conference with President Trump and others.

**Supreme Commander Otter orders the execution of all those that disagree with him** *Circa 1942*

Will for sure be a good time tommorow.

Did Otter shut down?

Most likely.

That entire situation was a catastrophe.

I'm merely waiting for you to give me accurate perimeters for discussion.

I bet he doesn't even work THODs.

I cannot falsely apply epistemological distinctions to ethics and allow people to persist to continue in discussion with these errant concepts.

It was a very simple question which you apparently spent hours trying to understand.

Actually shut the fuck up

@Deleted User

And still do not.

I understand WHAT you tried to say, but you refuse to correct yourself.

which is why I offered you the CORRECT concepts.

Then why was it so hard for you to answer it?

<:PINGREE:459545653350105088>