How could you be, who would obligate you? And true, why would you feel the need to respond? It’s not as if your so interested in the subject of objective morality that you would make your own forum for it, inviting others to get involved.
The other posts on my forum have nothing to do with objective morality.
Then we agree.
stuart, you have seen Von Rivers totally undermine nah’s argument, you may have seen him also wipe the floor with volchock, so what is your point here?
Chester, you seem to be asking those questions with the assumption that I believe in objective truths. I didn’t see him undermine Nah’s argument, I doubt Nah was being serious, but even if he was, then that’s his belief. I haven’t read any discussion between von Rivers and volchok, but I assumed there was one after noticing that von Rivers had an unpleasant false quotation attributed to volchok on his signature. Before that I had actually considered the possibility that they were the same person. Would you mind posting the link to that arguement?
I didn’t realize anybody was serious in this thread.
The real question is whether certain people are ever being serious.
I know. Though I try to tell myself it doesn’t matter.
OP is nonsensical on its face. I don’t think Nah was serious in the first place.
Quote the passage of text that you think did not make sense. Otherwise, don’t bother posting a one-line insult in my thread.
Is his belief that Santa Claus exists wrong? Or are you jumping aboard the objective truth train just that easily?
If that is indeed his belief, then it is right, for him, and that’s enough for me, but I still reserve the right to disagree with the rightness of his belief at a later time.
I may one day jump onto the objective train though, it’s just that I’m hesitant to being that I recently got pushed off it by objectivists who decided that it was objectively the right thing to do.
Truth is all about conditions. Anything can be true with the right conditions. Let’s be serious here and stop moving things from one set of conditions to another and trying to change the “truth” status of em.
You changed the question.
Anyway, if you love to live with moral or with any other story line, it’s not my business as long as you don’t try to make me live and act as you wish inside your reality dream(s). 
I didn’t say I believe in something, in that post Mo_ has partially quoted.
Please check my response, in which I quoted my entire post.
I didn’t say I was serious nor joking, either.
I’m usually dead serious but I also find pretty much everything to be funny (and stupid and insane).
I made the post in the way it’s very open to different possibilities, perspectives.
Basically, I was mimicking how we tend to talk/think in a thread like “existence of blah…”, “Proof of God…”, “Moral whatever dah…”, and so on.
I didn’t even define “Santa-Clause”, “exist(ence)”, to begin with, just like the threads/posts I was mimicking.
And silly material evidences like that can be enough in some court battle to win or loose the case.
It was a demonstration of our stupidity and insanity.
But it can be used in other ways, too.
There are other issues included in it.
Mo_ probably wanted to use in a way, but I turned it around, as I wasn’t so interested in the way he often plays the game.
Tell me what is “serious” for you, how you can separate “serious” from “non-serious” and where is the exact fine line dividing them.
I think I’m very serious, I know seriousness is hard to define it, but I make that determination based on the reaction others give me most of the time (when any). For example I think I’m beginning to be known for my intensly serious nature in the community sections.
Ordinary epistemic conditions of an ordinary epistemic observer, bruah. We’re talking about whether Santa Claus exists. Let’s be serious here and stop pretending like your point applies.
If we say, “at the very least santa exists as a fictional construct in the minds of children”, would you be able to follow?
I want an answer von!