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*