rationalskepticism.org

Hermit wrote:

OlivierK wrote:Yes, you're talking is, and I'm talking ought.

Arguing about what is from the standpoint of what ought to be is a well known logical fallacy. Surely, you must know that.

Sorry, Hermit, just about to head off for my morning walk, and didn't read further than this. I fucking know it's a fallacy to equivocate is and ought, but it's not a fallacy to offer an opinion on what ought to be, which is what I was doing.

You're conflating it with an "is" argument, not me, which is why I also pulled you up for misrepresenting what I wrote. In case I wasn't clear before, either in what I wrote, or when I objected to your reading of it (both entirely possible), then I hope I am now.

The outdoors calls.