So I have won already.
I didn’t think it would have lasted long anyway. 
And so since you cannot prove it - how were you expecting to win the debate against Avan-whatshisname?
“But it’s obvious! Self-evident! - See I win.”
You have no ‘victory’ here…
The proof is 4 pronged:
1.) self evident: (that tree is there). “Prove it”. Try to walk through it!!!
2.) inferential: I can calculate complete sets without having to actually count all members
3.) experiential: people don’t like bad things happening to them (For each person, what a bad thing is, is different)
4.) true by definition: see number three to understand: consent violation
If that was going to be your case - you would have lost on all 4 counts.
To even HALF defeat those 4 arguments, you have to jump off a mile high cliff naked and survive.
I would have nakedly jumped off of your mile high pile of rubbish and survived quite well.
Then you understand a deeper truth:
We never die.
The question for you is what are you doing to make your existence the best possible forever?
And that some of us never learn.
So anyway - back to ignoring you.
Why are you explaining this to me? It is Observer who wants to debate that point – and in a different thread, I suppose. Remember that I asked you “Are you interested?” So your response is not an answer to my question.
I don’t see the connection between “Morality is objective” and “Nobody wants their consent violated”.
Because consent violation is: “I don’t want that”. It’s the only possible foundation to morality.
chuckle obsrvr admitted that he put me on ignore before and just admitted it again.
His idol James didn’t do that!
Perhaps that’s the reason he’s no longer on this board.
I take it that you’re not interested in having a debate with Observer.
I’m doing it right now. He put me on ignore because he couldn’t handle it. He then states that I’m insane and he needs to ignore me.
What I’m saying is the truth of it all.
Nobody wants their consent violated. It’s the basest truth in all of existence.
I know why he’s ignoring this discussion. It’s hurting his ego that life is currently not good in some way.
Rose colored glasses.
He knows it’s true. Can’t handle it.
Until you admit the problem, there is no solution mode. Then… like James, you are part of the problem.
I think he wanted a proper debate in a separate thread dedicated to it. (Could be a thing of the past, though.)
I don’t think he “put you on ignore”. Rather, I think he’s merely ignoring you in the sense that he’s reading your posts but not responding to them. (He’s an observer after all.)
You’re supposed to prove (to Lamborghini) that “Morality is objective”. “Nobody wants their consent violated” is a different statement, one that is not the subject of your debate, but one that you can use as a premise in your argument. Albeit, I don’t see how you can do so. I still don’t see the connection.
But that’s what you have to do with respect to Ventilator – I mean, Pedro. And he’s not here.
What you have to prove to Observer is something else: you have to prove that you can prove that morality is objective.
I think the reason he’s ignoring the discussion is because it’s difficult – at times, somewhat frustrating – trying to have a discussion with you.
Actually I don’t read them -but - I read Yours. And when you quote him I end up seeing what he is saying.
I was only slightly curious how Aventador was going to attempt a debate - I rarely read his either - but —
Alright then. I haven’t ignored a poster ever (30 years). I wear it as a badge of honor. Now I know what a Trump supporter is really like. Way to represent your kind!
By the way. My post makes sense.
Nobody wants their consent violated is the easiest stupidest argument to make to anyone even if their IQ is negative 12. That’s objective morality in a nutshell.
So… shrug
It’s true for all beings and will always be true for all beings under every possible circumstance.
Can you please stop boasting?
Perhaps to you. But I am not sure it makes sense to others. And you wrote it for others, not for yourself.
I don’t think anyone argues that “Nobody wants their consent violated” is false. I certainly don’t. It’s just that the connection between that statement and the statement that “Morality is objective” isn’t quite clear.
Alright, so it seems like you’re saying the following:
-
“Nobody wants their consent violated” is a moral statement
-
“Nobody wants their consent violated” is true regardless of what anyone thinks
-
From (1) and (2), we can conclude that there are at least some moral statements that are true regardless of what anyone thinks
This is a rough attempt at reconstructing your argument in a bit clearer terms.
I agree with (2) but I disagree with (1). That’s definitely NOT a moral statement. A moral statement is an ought statement such as “You ouught not to abort the baby”. There is no “ought” nor “should” in “Nobody wants their consent violated”.
But I’m not the debater here, so what do I know?
I’m not sure that statement is true. 
But someone needs to define “morality” if this is going to continue.
I guess I should correct myself then. He was supposed to write it for others, not for himself.
Well, he already did. Morality is “Noone wants their consent violated”.
No - I meant an actual definition - not - whatever that statement is.
Morality is a set of moral beliefs. That’s it.
But what are moral beliefs? They are, first of all, beliefs. But what kind of beliefs? First of all, they are beliefs that can be expressed using ought statements e.g. “Person P should make decision D under these circumstances”. But of course, that’s not a sufficient condition. There are beliefs that can be expressed using ought statements that aren’t moral beliefs e.g. “You ought to drink water every day”. Examples of moral beliefs include statements such as “Women must not abort their babies”, “Humans must not kill other humans”, “People shouldn’t steal from other people” and so on. Moral beliefs generally have to do with how living beings ought to treat other living beings under various circumstances.
“Nobody wants their consent violated” is not an instance of morality because it is a not a set of beliefs but a single belief. Morever, it is not a moral belief because it’s not an ought statement.
But what is “objective morality”? What the flying fuck does that mean? I guess it refers to a set of moral beliefs each one of which is true. So when someone asks “Is there objective morality?”, I take it they mean “Is there a set of moral beliefs each one of which is true?”
And what about statements such as “Morality is objective”? What does that mean? I guess it means that the truth value of moral beliefs is independent from what people think their truth value is. So if a moral belief is true, it is true regardless of whether John thinks it’s true or false. If he thought it’s true, it would still be true. If he thought it’s false, it would still be true.
And what about the opposite? What does the freaking opposite mean? What does “Morality is subjective” mean? Well, it means . . . the opposite: that the truth value of any given moral belief is determined by what humans (some or all) think its truth value is. This is the position that Aventador was going to argue. I have no idea how though because it’s practically indefensible. It’s obviously false. But perhaps he wasn’t going to argue that position . . . the opposite of moral objectivity is moral subjectivity, but if you’re arguing against moral objectivity, that does not necessarily mean you’re arguing in favor of moral subjectivity.
And that’s where prom the eternal comes in. His argument is that morality is neither objective nor subjective because moral beliefs have no truth value. And they don’t because moral beliefs are imperative sentences such as “Don’t lie!”, “You women over there, don’t you dare abort!” and so on. While I agree that imperative sentences have no truth value, I disagree that moral beliefs – and ought statements in general – are imperative sentences. They aren’t. “You shouldn’t steal” is not the same as “Don’t steal”. And so that’s where he made a mistake. An ought statement such as “You shouldn’t abort” is equivalent to “The consequences of abortion are of lesser preference to you than the consequences of not aborting”. That’s obviously either true or false.
But Aventador the Bull didn’t show up, so we can’t tell what he was going to argue for for the time being. We are left in the dark.