Message from @Eoppa
Discord ID: 633746557895835661
You made one that it isn't, and I'm really not buying it.
Just because one could possibly use a definition that no one has used before doesn't make it ambiguous
Again;
Your words have many other definitions also that you don't intend
Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent. (google)
Yes?
Do you know how essential and natural are used in philosophy
Have you read up on natural law or essentialism?
Look at the webster page
My model allows for both versions of the phrase to make sense, by explaining your version as involving an implicit omission.
You have no model, you called mine "not literal"
Which it clearly is
So, from websters intrinsic
And morality
Is saying objective morality ambiguous because objective can mean unbiased?
You described an argument for those definitions leading to "morality intrinsic to reality"
It is to some people who are uneducated, but we don't worry about that because both versions are so widely used, and are also closely related.
Now how about *the only use* of intrinsic morality
Arguably, the word can be taken to have the same meaning in both cases, and the differences explained with omission
Non bias in a person's view, and being q real feature of reality isn't synonymous
The danger here is people are at greater risk of being mislead
Do you think people have an IQ of 2
My interpretation is likely the interpretation of the common man
I've never had anyone make that mistake before
You shouldn't use the intelligence of others as a crutch, rely on it when necessary
If someone doesn't know, they google intrinsic morality
Except, my version of the phrase is also valid
You clarfied what you meant, and I accepted that meaning
Sure, but that also means nothing at all in the context I used it, so to know more people will google it
Or they'd ask you for clarification
Because they don't assume you're without fault
Nor was I talking to you to begin with, why would your interpretation matter?
and / or possibly have a bad internet connection at the moment, ioi
Me and that person discuss this all the time, they knew what I'm talking about
You show up with zero context and assume you will have a good opinion
You clarified your point, I talked about I didn't read it that way, and how I took issue with the language
You then clarified that it was a term of art
And took issue when I tried to use the component words in other ways; morality intrinsic to the subject
I took issue because I already clarified the only use of the word, and you were trying to address *other* uses of it when that wasn't the argument