Danny VS Kojo - FORMAL DEBATE (META ETHICS)

Welcome everyone to this formal debate. The topic is going to be subjectivism is true, with Danny taking the affirmative position and K taking the negation position. The format is going to be a five-minute opening for each person, 25 minutes of cross-examination for each person, and 5 minutes of closing for each person.

So when I received the debate topic, I accepted it. Although I did qualify, um, that I don't really have any arguments for subjectivism. I just think that, um, when people, uh, utter statements that have moral terms in them, if they were to utter them in a subjectivist way or, um, if they interpret other people as subjectivist, uh, that you can, it totally explains the data in terms of things like moral disagreement. And, um, I think it could do just as fine, do just fine in, um, being applicable and when we're disagreeing about political questions like abortion, gay marriage, um, whatever, you know. I, I think that it's fine, a fine take on moral discourse.

Now, uh, reason why is that frankly, the way I want to frame everything is I care about things. Uh, you might care about the same sort of things, and then, um, we could disagree in so far as how to actualize, um, our shared values. So, an example would be something like, um, I, I value people getting treatment for cancer once they're diagnosed. I think many other, most other people do, right? Now, there's a lot of dispute about how to bring that value about, how to get what we want, right? And so if someone says we should have a socialist system, if someone else says that it should be privatized, and then a third person says that it should be mixed, right? Um, the point is that that just all of that language is made sense of in terms of we all want the same thing. We want a particular healthcare outcome. Uh, there are going to be cases where we don't care about the same things, and then you can play the game of like, who's consistent with respect to their value. So, it could be that someone else has values that I just don't have at all, and I don't really think there's any room to to give arguments as to why they should have my values. Uh, now, we could show why those values are consistent, um, or or inconsistent. U, but to me, that's pretty much sums up how I want to understand moral discourse. Anything outside of that is either not very interesting, trivial, changing the subject, or flat out incoherent. Um, but yeah, that's how I see, uh, these sorts of statements, and that's all I have to say.

Yeah. Um, I [clears throat] don't really have too much to say since the beginning of, uh, Danny's opening. You know, kind of already admitted that you don't really have an argument. Uh, which is kind of interesting because you're supposed to be arguing for moral subjectivism here today. But I guess, uh, all I have to do here is sufficiently demonstrate why moral subjectivism is false. Um, so I guess we can just get right into it.

Right? I yield all of my 25 minutes to K. He can take the entire, um, I believe it's a, a 50-minute exchange. Uh, he can have the entire time. Go ahead.

So, you want me to ask you questions about your beliefs?

I mean, I'm just, I don't have anything to ask you.

Okay. Sure. Um, yeah. So, I guess the sort of first question that I'm going to ask you is, do you take the view that moral propositions exclusively describe hypothetical reasons, or do you think that there are such things as categorical reasons?

I don't really, I mean, I know what people say and how they describe categorical reasons, but I really don't find them mostly unintelligible.

Well, okay. So, was the answer like, you do take the view that moral propositions in fact exclusively describe hypothetical reasons?

Uh, when I utter statements, they they're hypothetical like that. But, um, if other people don't use it that way, then trivially, no.

Well, I'm ask, well, obviously we're asking about your usage here, right?

Yeah. So, when I use, wow.

Sorry about the sound. Go ahead.

When I, when I make claims about, you know, often I make a normative claim that is when I make.

Wait, wait, hold on. Let me, let me just take a second and thank, uh, John for that gift. I've never seen something like that. Thank you very much, John. I appreciate that. Go ahead, Danny. Sorry.

Yeah. When I make, often when I make normative claims, it's hypothetical. I don't ever make, uh, categorical claims.

Okay, cool. So, um, let's just consider this case for example. Okay. And I'm, I'm kind of curious to see how you would respond to this if you are taking the view that moral propositions, uh, do in fact, at least on your view, on your reading of the terms, that they do in fact exclusively describe hypothetical reasons. Let's just take this case for example. So imagine somebody who was like an amoralist. Are you familiar with what an amoralist is?

Just so I'm clear.

Okay. So, when I say amoralist here, all I mean is is some given agent that would understand all of the relevant moral norms, right? So they're not ignorant. They're not confused about the relevant moral norms. They also recognize what morality would require of them, right? Like, for example, you know, maybe it might be the case that in some cases morality requires that you should help somebody if they need help or something like this, for example, right? And they also might just not care or feel any motivation to comply with these sort of moral norms, right? Um, so let's just take this sort of amoralist case for example. Let's say that we had some agent where, you know, they had an understanding of all the moral norms. They recognized what morality would require of them, but they just simply didn't care. They didn't have any desires that were in accordance with these norms or anything like this. Um, and they said that they wanted to grape a woman like right in front of them. Now, is it the case on a reading where moral propositions exclusively describe hypothetical norms, is it the case that such action is morally good on your view, on your reading?

Okay. Uh, three things. I don't know what the sense of require you're employing there. And I don't know what moral norms are apart from what I care about or what we care about or our values. And third, I never said the word exclusive. I said that the way I use, um, when I make statements, normative statements, they often enough are hypothetical. Sometimes I use moral language, you know, ironically or descriptively or institutionally, but, um, you know, that's sometimes I use them language that way. But, uh, when people ask me, do I think like, you know, what the Nazis did was wrong, right? I'm using that in a subjectivist way when I say that they are doing something wrong.

Right. But what I'm, what I'm asking here is just whether or not you think that I'm not, it's not really about like the sort of semantical use of the term, like how you're using the language, rather I'm asking you about like reasons themselves, right? Whether or not you take the view that reasons are simply hypothetical, right? Like whenever, you know, people, uh, what, what these moral propositions are, whether or not you think that it is the case that these moral propositions are just hypothetical reasons or express hypothetical reasons, right? In which case you would say yes.

Okay. So, when, when you say moral propositions, you just mean reasons?

When I say moral propositions, I'm talking about a given proposition that has like moral content embedded in it. And if you want me to sort of elucidate on the concept of what it means for a moral proposition to have moral content embedded in it, I could, but you could just take your own sort of reading of that and we can just sort of further the discussion that way.

Okay. So, to make sure I understand, so there's a statement, right, that I write, I'm writing down. Um, what the Nazis did was wrong. Okay. What?

Really quick, can we just find a way to censor that? Like just say Yatsi or something?

Okay.

Oh yeah, you have to censor for TikTok purposes.

Uh, I'll, I'll respect that. Just, just so you know, I do it on my live all the time and I don't have any issues, but I will, I respect the the platform here. Um, uh, anyways, yeah, when, um, the, the Germans did that, um, I think that that is wrong. Okay. So, what you're, do I anal, I, I would analyze that term in terms of a stance dependent and as a stance dependent way. Um, now, do I think that every single utterance in every single statement is going to express that? Um, no. Do I think most of the statements in this kind of setting are going to express that when I add them? Yes.

Okay. That's fine. So, you, you take the view that most instances where there's a given moral proposition that that thing is expressed in hypothetical reasons, not categorical reasons, where I make, where I make that statement.

Right. Right. When Danny talks about morality, what Danny means when he's expressing moral propositions is that those things have a relation, some type of relation to hypothetical reasons.

Okay. Cool. So,

specifically about things like the normal sorts of things that we bring up in moral discourse, like what the schmasis did and stuff like that.

Yeah. That, yeah, that's totally fine. So, the answer, I don't, I didn't really hear an answer to the question that I asked previously. It seems like you kind of dodged it, right? So, the question that I was asking previously.

What can you repeat the question?

Yeah. Yeah, sure. I'll just go ahead and repeat it again. So, we just have a case where somebody's an amoralist. I've already kind of gone over what an amoralist is. It's just somebody who understands all the relevant moral norms. They're not ignorant or confused about the relevant moral norms. It's not that they have a lack of access to the norms. Um, and they also recognize what morality would require of them. You said that you didn't understand what sense in which I meant when I said require. All I'm meaning there is just to say that there's a reason that counts in favor of some given action, given that they have epistemic access to all the relevant moral norms, and that this specific agent in question just simply doesn't care, or they don't have any motivation whatsoever to comply with these moral norms, right? So, if that sort of thing is true, right, on the hypothetical reasons view, like your view, for example, right? If it's true that these moral reasons are merely just conditional, meaning that, you know, for example, you have some reason to, you know, I don't know, like, uh, be honest, if you want to maintain your integrity, for example, right? Those things are only relevant in so far as the consequent of the, uh, conditional satisfied, right? So, if that sort of thing was true in the grape case, would it be the case that the action is morally, or that they have a reason that counts in favor of graping the woman, let's just say.

And can you clarify what counts in favor means?

Well, when I say counts in favor, I don't think that I can get, this is sort of carrying over from our previous live. I don't think that I can give you like any joint necessary and sufficient conditions. I can just sort of give it to you by way of example, right? Like, so for example, when I say that, uh, imagine like, uh, imagine like a train track, for example, right? Imagine if, um, you know, there was a train, there was a train that was approaching you, right? That fact about the train approaching you counts in favor of moving away from the train, right? For the sake of like your interest or something like that, for example. Or you can think about it in this way, if somebody else was tied down to the train track, for example, right? The fact that the train is moving toward them counts in favor of you moving them away from the train track, right? Maybe for the sake of their well-being or something like that. So, that's generally what I mean when I say some, when I say reason, and when I say counts in favor of, those are the sorts of things that I mean.

Yeah, but it seems like the sense of counts in favor there is one that's completely conceptually distinct from anything like motivation, right? So, I don't understand what that means.

I, I don't, what is this responding? Are we going to get an answer to the question, by the way, or you just, is this like your way of clarifying the question? Just, I just want to be clear.

You didn't, there's no clarification. You used the term. I was.

I'm asking if you are, if this line of questioning that you're asking me is a way to clarify about the question that I asked you.

Yeah, because you failed to elucidate your your phrase counts in favor to me.

Well, I didn't, I don't, okay. So, I don't think that I failed to elucidate. I think I elucidated pretty clearly, but is there something that you didn't understand about the examples that I gave, the case examples?

Yeah, the phrase counts in favor of, I still don't know what it means.

So, you don't know what it means when I say that the fact that a train is running, or rather coming towards you, counts in favor of you moving away from the train. You don't conceptualize that. You don't understand that.

I don't know what that means. That, that's divorced from my values or anyone else's.

Well, hold on. I'm not making, look, so the claim isn't to give a sort of, or, uh, I guess you could say an analysis or a reading of the term indexed to Danny's values and Danny's judgments, right? The claim is just simply to tell you what it means when I say something counts in favor of X, right? So, I've satisfied that burden. Now, if you're asking me, if you're saying something like, you don't know what that means, divorced from your value system, that's that's something different.

You were listening. I said anyone else's values.

From anyone else's values?

Yeah. You, you're not listening. I said I don't know what that means if it's divorced from my values or anyone else's.

Well, it could just be that. Okay. So, we can just sort of use the sort of train example still, right? Even if it is the case that the person that's on the train, right, doesn't have any motivation to move away from the train, it's still the case that there's a reason that counts in favor of them moving away from the train. Right? Now, that sort of reason, if you, if you still can't conceptualize what that reason is, that's totally fine. But that's still, you're still not really answering the question that I asked you previously.

Answer questions that you don't understand.

Okay. So, what, okay. So, what part of the question are you not understanding? Is it just specifically the part about what a reason is?

Yeah, the counsel, you're wanting to understand reason divorced from value and personal values, including mine or yours or anyone else's, right? I don't, I think that's unintelligible. I don't know what you're talking about.

Okay. So, okay. So, just to be clear, the question that I asked you previously was, okay. So, on your reading of value, right, you take it that all it, or sorry, on your reading of reasons, you take it that those things are in some sense like, uh, they're tied to your value system, your axiology, right?

My desires or anyone else's desires.

Your desires. Okay. So, on this amoralist case that I gave you previously, right? Then it would be the case then that given that all of the reasons or all of that person's desires are let's just say geared towards graping the woman in front of them, then it would be the case that they have reasons to do that on your view, on your reading of the term, right?

Yeah. They would have a reason unto themselves. Yeah.

So, so they would have a reason to rape the woman, is what you're saying? As in, like, that's what they, that's what they should do?

Well, I don't think that's what they should do, but they have a reason to do that.

Well, yeah, but usually, okay. So, are you saying when you say they should do something, is that something different from saying that they have a reason to do something?

One, they're indexed differently, right? If I say I don't think they should do it, that's indexed to my reasons, right? But if I were to say they have a reason to do it, obviously it's their reasons that I'm talking about, not mine.

Okay. But, okay. So, I, that didn't really clarify the question, right? So, the, the question was, are you saying when you say somebody should do something, that's just to say that you specifically have a preference that they do that thing, or you have a desire that they do that thing? Right?

Either that, or I'm appealing to their own motivational set.

Okay. Okay. Cool. So, so yeah. So, on this reading then, this amoralist in this case, it would be the case that they should grape the woman, right? Given that all of their desires are in accordance with the things that count in favor of graing the woman.

No, I wouldn't say that they should do it, right? I wouldn't say that.

So, you say that they shouldn't do it?

Right. They shouldn't do that.

And what do you mean when you say they shouldn't do that?

Right? That means I'm against it. It's against my values.

Okay. So, when you say that they shouldn't do it, all you're saying is that that's against your specific values, but not that they have reasons not to do it.

Yeah. They might have a reason unto themselves to do it.

But, but they don't have any reasons not to do it.

They might not have any reasons to do it. Yeah.

I know. So, is not not that they might not, is that they don't have reasons not to do it. Right.

Well, you, if we're doing all equal, but people can have competing desires.

Right? But, okay. So, but in the case that I gave previously, it's, it is the case that all of their desires are such that they are directly in favor of graping the woman.

Right. So, you had to qualify that they had no conflicting will, conflicting desires, in which case they would have a reason to do that.

Right. So, and conversely, they would have no reason not to do that, right? So, okay. So, cool. So, now that we understand that, right? If this amoralist were to grape the woman, right, on your reading of morality, they would have no reason not to grape the woman, despite the fact that Danny specifically has values against this amoralist raping the woman. Correct?

Right. They'd have reasons to do that. They'd have no reasons not to do that, even though it's true that they think it's bad, or that it's bad for them to do that.

Okay. Well, I think this is, uh, you know, you might, there's a couple of responses that the subjectivist could give here. One is that the subjectivist could say that it's trivially expected on like a hyp, on a reading about reasons being hypothetical, that these sorts of things would count trivially as reasons that count in favor of raping a woman. But it seems to me, and it seems like most people don't have the intuition that that person does not have reasons to not rape the woman, right? And here's what I mean by that. I mean that despite your specific attitudes about that case, and despite the amoralist's lack of motivation to converge to the moral norms, that it still seems to be the case that they have a reason not to grape the woman, right? So, given that I think that there's something that subjectivism fails to explain.

What am I, what am I failing to explain?

Well, what you're failing to explain there is the obvious intuition that there's a reason not to grape the woman. But you're saying that, given all the facts, given all the relevant facts about the person's stances, that there are no reasons to not rape the woman, right? Which obviously seems insane, right? We don't want to say that, you know, if somebody doesn't care about moral, moral norms, or if they're not personally motivated about these moral norms, that they, you know, therefore, or thereby, shouldn't, you know, uh, or rather, they don't have reasons to like not grape people, right? Right? Like, imagine if we lived in a world where, you know, it was like a group of people that all were amoralists, right? And imagine if all of these people did not have reason, or rather, did not have motivations to converge with moral norms, and, you know, they didn't care about reasons not to act in certain ways, and they were just acting on their desires, right? This seems like it would be a very sort of like immoral society, right? A society that we don't want people to live in, right?

Well, the point is is that if I, I can totally say that they might have a reason to, uh, not grape, uh, because I think they might regret it later. Um, so, uh, even it could be that this person has no desires to refrain from raping the person, right? But we could tell them that you might have a reason in that you'll regret this later because you go to jail. You, you'll regret the harm that you've caused. And in so far as those future, um, sorts of, uh, intentional states, right, you're, you know, you shouldn't do it. But, um, other than that, I mean, I, I think that that can perfectly accommodate the language that, um, in those sorts of cases. Although, you know.

Well, I, I don't really, I'm not really seeing how that's like sort of gets [clears throat] sorry. I don't, I'm not really seeing how that sort of gets around the issue, right? Like, you're just kind of positing that they might, and I'm interpreting that as like some remote possibility that they might, you know, regret this in the future or something. But that could just be easily stipulated, and that could just be, you know, sort of accounted for in the hypothetical case scenario, right? So, given this amoralist that, you know, they won't have any future regrets about this action, it still seems to be the case that they do not in fact, uh, or rather, that there is a reason why they shouldn't rape the woman, despite the fact that Danny's specific values don't, or rather, do converge with them not having reasons, and that amoralist's specific, uh, values or their stances don't converge with the moral norms, right? Despite all these facts, it seems to be the case that they still have a reason not to grape the woman, right? I mean, you would agree with this, right?

Yeah. Again, I just gave you an account of how that could make sense.

Like,

you just gave me an account of how that could make sense.

Yeah.

Sorry. You're kind of, you're kind of using like very vague, like, I, so when you're saying things, I want you to say them like, you know, like you actually, you know, believe them, cuz you keep saying things like might, should, you know, maybe, like, is it really the case, or is it not?

Well, the point is that the hypothetical is sort of factually impoverished, right? Like, let me give you a real life example. Um, so if, because if you stipulate that they'll never regret it, okay, that, um, they're going to grape and they will never regret it, they'll be happy and they'll blah, blah, blah, right? There's not much to say to that person. I think we should just kill that person. But, um, the, but when it comes to like cases like, let's say I teach a student, okay? And a student has no desire to do any of the work, okay? They have no desire to do any of the homework assigned, okay? That a subjectivist could still say, look, man, you have a, you should, you should, um, do the homework, right?

By should, what do they mean there? I'm, what I'm, what I'm, I'm about to say what I said earlier, right? That I'm revealing that they're going to regret it if they don't do the homework, right? And it's very likely that they will if they, you know, if they want to pass my class, but they have no desire, the homework to do the homework, right? Then what's going on there is that they're not realizing that, um, they should desire, given their other value, to pass the class, to desire to do the homework. Okay.

Yeah. But, but that's not, so this is kind of not really addressing what the issue that I'm, you know, forwarding here is.

In the issue.

Well, okay. So, what, what you're sort of positing as a response here is that it could be the case that, you know, this person, the specific subject in question, could have competing values in the background that they just haven't evaluated yet, right? Or they could have competing preferences.

No. So, look, in the homework case, they have no desire to do the homework. They have no conflicting will there, just like in your grape case.

Have a desire to pass the class. So, now, if they have no desire to pass the class, and they have no, and if there's no reason to think that they'll regret, um, not doing the homework, then I don't know what, I think that student should be removed from school, and that's all there is. Or at least.

Well, okay. So, let's just sort of go back to the case about the grape example, right? So, in the case of grape, sort of, you know, equalize the facts that you just listed there, but use the grape example.

Yeah, so they have, they, they have a desire to grape, um, the, the per, the person. Okay. They also, if you, let's just add in that they have no desire to go to prison. Okay. So, but they don't connect the fact that if they grape, right, they'll go, they'll very likely go to prison, or they'll go to prison, right? You could still say, "Look, man, you shouldn't grape them," even and then point out to the descriptive facts that if you grape them, we have it on tape. We have, you have those witnesses. U, sucks. Remember, you don't like going to jail.

Okay. So, but pause right there. So, do you think pointing out those descriptive facts is going to motivate the agent in any way?

It's likely, but it's not necessarily the case that it will. They could be just not, they may not understand what I'm saying. You know, there's all sorts of reasons for why they wouldn't accept what I'm saying.

Right? But the point, the point here is that on a, on a reading about moral propositions expressed in hypothetical reasons, that we couldn't even say that this amoralist really did anything wrong because, I mean, you could, you could, you could say something like they didn't have the right desires, or you could say that their desires don't converge with yours.

Again, that, you, you could, I wouldn't even.

You could say that they didn't have the right desires. You could say that they have inconsistent.

That I couldn't say that they did anything wrong.

You, on, okay. So, I'm saying that on a reading about more, or excuse me, rather, on a reading about reasons where those reasons are hypothetical, that you couldn't say that this amoralist in this case did anything wrong. And the reason why.

Wrong as in that could just mean that I just value what they did.

Yeah. But, okay. So, and by wrong, you just mean that you specifically don't value what they did?

Or us. Yeah.

Okay. So, okay. So, now here's a further problem that I have with your sort of view. Here's a second issue that I have with your view. Before we sort of get on to the second issue that I have with the view, um, the first issue is that I don't, I don't really see how like on that reading of the term wrong, that that satisfactorily accounts for, I guess you could say, like folks' intuitions concerning the relevant paradigmatic facts about normative properties concerning moral propositions. I don't think that those, I don't think that's what captures like our moral language in such a way where it's meaningful. Right? Like, I don't think when I say something like, you know, for example, uh, the scholoc was wrong. I don't think people are saying merely that they disvalue the things that were happening in the right.

What, what, well, then tell me what everyone is saying. What's the.

I'm not, I'm not making a claim about what everyone is saying. Right. I'm making a claim, and by the way, I don't, like, all I'm saying here is objecting to your sort of reading of the term, uh, morally wrong. No, no, this is the way I say things, or way, or the way that maybe other appraiser relativists might say things, right? What other people are saying, God knows what, right? It's very confused out there. Like people like you are very confused, for example.

Say it again.

God knows what goes on in moral discourse just universally outside. Why are you talking about God?

Fraser relativists are saying, right? There are a lot of confused people out there. People are using it descriptively. People are changing the subject. All right. People are talk, might be talking about the will of a law, right? Who, I mean, like the point is that there's a lot of confusion out there, and you're amongst them, right? So.

Okay. So, let's, let's just try to like stick back on topic, right? I know you want to sort of turn this into another religious debate like you do with all of your other debates because your father like beat you when you were a kid. But let's not do that, right? So, what we should do instead is let's stick on the immoralist case that I gave you just now. Right? So, on your reading of moral reasons, right? You take the view that all moral reasoning is just going to be hypothetical, right? Meaning that.

No, no, no, no. The way that I.

Sorry, not not all, but most reasons are going to be hypothetical.

It's the way that I use the term reason.

Yes, that's why I said on your reading.

No, that's not what you said initially. You just changed it.

No, I said on your reading. I said.

Think about the phrasing there. On your reading. That could be my.

On your, on your reading of the terms. That means on your reading of the terms morally good and morally bad. That, that's compatible with how I interpret other people. You're not really thinking about what you're saying.

Okay. So, when I say on your reading, right, I can just clarify since you think that that's compatible with other things.

I didn't misspeak. It was very obvious the context of what I meant. But you want to be pedantic.

But you want to be pedantic. That's totally fine. Right. So, what I meant by on your reading, it's just talking. Hold on. Just relax. When I say on your reading, all I'm saying there is just simply, right, how you interpret terms. You specifically, not how you interpret other people using them.

Interpret terms that way.

Wait, hold on. Yes, you do. You said that you do.

No, listen to my position. The way I use terms, right? This is the way I use, or I people that I know, um, might be using a subjectivist sense of the term good or bad. That's how, uh, that's the way I would interpret it. Now.

Danny, that's not. No, you said you said previously that when you use moral terms, right? Yes or no? Okay, look. Yes or no? When you said pre, did you not say previously that when you use moral terms that most of the time the reasons are hypothetical?

Yeah, I said that.

Okay. That's all I'm saying. I don't know why you tried to object to me. That was pointless. Right? I don't know why you tried to go down that whole dialogue tree there. That was entirely.

Language, right? [clears throat] Not talk over each other. Just want.

Right. So, that's all I meant to say there, and it turns out you agree with me. I don't know why you tried to object to that. I didn't misspeak at all. In fact, I was very clear about my language. You just tried to get a pedantic point out there, right? So, now, secondly, right? So, now that we know that what on your reading of the terms, meaning that how you interpret the terms morally good or morally bad, that most of the time those moral propositions express hypothetical reasons, right? Given that fact, that means that, you know, moral obligations, and you know, sort of moral accountability, moral blameworthiness, praiseworthiness, all of these things are interpreted on certain types of conditionals, right? So, moral reasons themselves are going to be conditional.

Let me say something. So.

That was a yes or no question.

You're confused. You see the, again, I.

So, is that yes or no?

I don't interpret everyone as using the terms the way I.

That, that's not what I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right, if you, uh, what is universally how the terms are being universally used. Okay. Now, often it's kind of clear in a particular context, but sometimes it's not, right? Um, especially, especially when we're talking about like things like, oh, healthcare, right? I can assume that they're using a subjectivist notion of healthcare because we have shared values, right? When it comes to abortion, that's not the case. Um, so please don't conflate on my reading versus on my usage.

Okay? So, I, I don't, that literally didn't add anything to the conversation whatsoever, right? I've already clarified what I meant by when I said on your reading. So, I don't know why you felt the need to sort of like distinguish between on my reading and on my usage. I've already told you what I meant by me asking you on your reading. Right? So, now that we've clarified already what I meant by saying on your reading, that's just to say that your interpretation of moral semantics, right? So, on your reading of the terms, when you say when you talk about moral reasons, those things are not conditional.

Wait, wait. So, you mean on my reading? Mean on my interpretation?

Danny, I don't know why you're acting confused when I say the word on your reading when I've already clarified several times what I meant by that.

Question. You asked the question because the claim I've never ever and you can go back to the recording, anyone, right? Never made the claim that I interpret everyone or most people.

That's not the question that I asked you.

That's what did you ask precisely? I thought.

So, on, on your reading of the terms, on your interpretation of moral, of of these moral properties, moral propositions, whatever you want to call it. Is it the case that moral reasons are conditional? Yes or no?

No.

Moral reasons are not conditional. I thought you said that they were hypothetical. Hypothetical reasons.

Okay. So, let, let allow me to clarify. I would appeal to the mod, to allow me to clarify.

There's. See, it's okay. He's confused between these two phrases, right? Danny, on your usage of the terms XYZ versus Danny, on your reading of the terms, is it XYZ? Now, he thinks these two are basically the same statement, but they're not, right? On the way I use the terms, it's subjectivist usually, right? Hypothetical, right? But when other people use the terms, it gets complicated because people are confused. People might be talking about God's will, not people might talk about happiness. It's unclear, right

Which is exactly what I'm trying to show is very reasonable. I'm glad we're on the same page. K.

>> Okay. Are you done? I I just want to know if you're done. I don't want to interrupt you. Okay, cool. Yeah. So, me saying that I don't care about your specific values does not make me a subjectivist. I don't know what type of inference that you made there. Uh, that that was really like really [ __ ] bad, honestly. Um, hold on. You said you would let me finish. I don't know why you're interrupting, right? Don't be hypocritical, Danny. Don't be a hypocrite.

Okay. Now, um, and then secondly, right, I I just want to know if this is what the subjectivist's like metical view terminates in. Does this terminate in just saying I don't care. The other person says I don't care that you don't care. And this just gets into like an infinite regress of people not caring. Or is it the case that you know the obvious intuition there that that amoralist does have a reason not to grape the woman is actually true? Which one is it?

>> Well, there again there are senses of um you know you shouldn't do it where it's indexed to potential future values or regrets or whatever uh desires uh like I gave in the homework case. In that case, in the homework case, um the student has no desire to do the homework. And yeah, if there's a there's a a very narrow sense of reason where they have no desire to do the homework, but then you show them that given their other desire um uh to to succeed in the class and given the the sort of descriptive fact that homework brings about um A's or something like that, then they can connect do connect the dots there. So there there's a sense in there's another sense of reason that's still derivative of per people's personal values uh that that's employed there um where they yet have no desire to do the right thing at that moment.

>> Okay, cool. So yeah, it seems like you don't like I'm not really finding these answers to be satisfactory at all. It seems like all the sort of answer that you have so far against the case why the person shouldn't rape the person is or rather shouldn't grape this woman. Hold on. Don't be don't be a hypocrite. Don't be a hypocrite. Right now, the only answer that you as a subjectivist have for why it is the case that this person shouldn't rape the woman or that there are reasons why he shouldn't rape the woman, it's just appealing to future uh, you know, stances that this person just might not have. And in which case, if they don't have them, then they do not in fact have any reasons not to grae this woman, which is still quite absurd. But there's a further problem that I mentioned previously that I want to discuss. Um, you know, we've kind of beat down this dead horse here. Do you want to move on to the next point that I have or the next issue that I have with your view or do you want to say one last thing about this point or what do you want to do?

>> Um well one last point. Um

>> if you don't mind if I asked you a question or no?

>> Sure. Yeah, you can ask me anything you want.

>> All right. Um it pertains to what we just talking about. When I asked you to define meaningful, did you end up defining that in terms of what you care about?

>> Uh yeah. So when I So when I said meaningful, right, I was talking about Okay. So let me just sort of give a better definition or a better read.

>> Yes or no? There I want an yes or no.

>> Yeah. So when you asked me previously I did but I can just give you like a reformulation of it if you want. Right. So when I say meaningful I mean that there are in fact like categorical reasons that count in favor of the person not doing that action.

>> Count and it goes back to the count in favor stuff. So you can move on with your next point.

>> Yeah. Which I've already kind of elucidated on and you said that you didn't understand it for some reason. And I think it was pretty clear when I said when I gave the train example like I'll just sort of re like reiterate that so that it's extra clear for people. I don't know how you still don't get it but when like for example in like the train track example, right? The fact that the train is moving towards you counts in favor of you moving away from the train. Okay, pretty simple concept to understand. Danny is saying that he doesn't understand that for some reason.

>> We can move on to the next one.

>> Directly respond. Did you finish? I didn't mean to interrupt. Did you finish?

>> I I didn't I didn't hear you because of the the gift thing.

>> Oh, I didn't mean to cut you off. If I did, you can finish.

>> Oh. Oh, no. You can you can go ahead. Go ahead.

>> Okay. Um, if you're interested in my response to that, you can just look back at the video um that will inevitably be on YouTube. All right. You you said you wanted to bring something else up.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um this is like the more interesting objection that I have actually. So are you familiar with like uh conceptualism and non-conceptualism and that whole divide?

>> I mean I know what conceptualism like like like in when it comes to abstracta or like the whole nominalist versus realist debate. I think conceptualism is a form of nominalism if I remember correctly. But other than that I don't know what you're I don't know what you're bringing up.

>> Okay. So when I say conceptualism in this specific context right here, right? When I say conceptualism, I'm talking about a type of content of our perceptual experiences. In which case, those things have relevant paradigmatic facts that consist in things like material objects, for example, universals, propositions, first principles, so on and so forth, right? Those things are conceptually structured. Those mental representations or those perceptual experiences are conceptually structured in such a way where those things are able to provide justification for our epistemic beliefs. Okay. And when I say non-conceptualist, I'm just talking about the negation of those things, right? The the non of those things. Okay. Does that make sense?

>> Um I I I hesitate to say yes. I mean I mean so you're just to make sure I understand if I said that I believe um that there's a tree in my front yard, right? There's content in that belief in that context. There's something about you wanted to say something about that content as being external or internal. Well, when I so that that content is going to have a certain type of conceptual structure, right? Now, if it's the case that the relevant content in question is not conceptually structured, then that sort of thing cannot be the type of thing that provides reasons for justification given our empirical beliefs, epistemic beliefs, so on and so forth.

>> What is conceptual structure?

>> Yeah. So, when I say something is conceptually structured, I'm just saying that the relevant content in question is something that's entirely constituted by concepts. That's what I mean by a conceptual structure, right? something that has like inferial relations, something that can you know that that's co-extensive with the logical space of reasons like Mad talks about in his paper.

>> Okay. So like again going back to the I believe I believe that there's a tree in my front yard. There's the concept of tree that's indispensable to that proposition is that and so in so far as that tree and lawn um these are concepts that I have the belief has content that's conceptually structured in my understanding.

>> Yeah, you could you could think about it that way. Are you so now you're kind of clear on what I mean by conceptual and non-conceptual. Correct. You could just take those concepts and just take the negation of that. That's what I mean by non-conceptual.

>> Okay. Now I'm confused about what non-concept. So if I'm a non-conceptualist I mean you're saying a non-conceptualist would what is that would they would say that there like let's say the belief that there's a tree in my front yard. they would say that tree isn't a concept and or that that statement isn't built of what what's a non-conceptualist then

>> okay so here it's very simple right so if you're a non-conceptualist that's just to say that all of the relevant like uh all of the relevant mental content are not the types of things that are conceptually structured they're not co-extensive the logical space of reasons they're not the things that can provide justification for our beliefs concerning those propositions in question

>> all right um I don't understand that position but I don't think it matters because presumably you're a conceptualist, quote unquote.

>> Well, it does matter and I'm about to explain why it matters. I'm just trying to get you to understand what the thing the background concepts are before we get into the conversation about, you know, how this is an objection against your specific version of subjectivism.

>> Okay, go ahead.

>> Okay, cool. So, um given you know the sort of background concepts there about the divide between conceptualism and non-conceptualism, here's the argument. You can tell me which premise you deny. Okay, so uh the argument is very simple. Premise one, the only type of mental states that can enter into rational relations are those that are inferential and can serve as justifications for beliefs. Uh non-conceptual preferences or effective responses like the ones that you were talking about previously, desires, you know, those sorts of things. They cannot enter rational relations because they lack conceptual content. They lack conceptual structure. And so therefore, non-conceptual preferences or effective responses cannot serve as justification for moral beliefs. Which premise do you deny? I I thought you said the first premise and then you said the entire argument. Can you repeat the first premise?

>> Yeah. So the first premise is the only type of mental states that can enter into rational relations are those kinds that can serve as justification for moral beliefs. Okay. Premise two is that non-conceptual preferences or effective responses like yours, for example, values and so on and so forth, those things cannot in fact enter rational relations because they lack conceptual structure. And so from that we can infer that non-conceptual preferences are in fact or rather they do not serve as justification for moral beliefs.

>> Okay. Um I'm having a hard time like first of all the the term rational and justify like those are very vague terms especially in the in a debate like this. Some people think that justification is external and I don't know if you're using that sense of um justification. I'm more of an internalist. So it might be that I don't know how you want to proceed. We can either break down each of those premises so that I can tell you whether I accept them or deny them or I can give you my view of justification and I don't know I I don't know how I don't even know how to inter interact with [clears throat] your your premises because I'm not so sure what I'm signing off on.

>> Well, okay. So, do you we've already kind of went over the fact that there's going to be certain type of mental con. Okay. So, I maybe I can explain this by way of example so it's easier for you to grasp on the concept. Is that cool?

>> Oh yeah. whatever whatever you can do to efficiently help me understand what's going on.

>> Yeah. Cool. Yeah, that's fine. That's totally fine. So, uh I wouldn't, you know, really expect somebody who's not familiar with like, you know, some of sellers in Madal's work to really understand this stuff. Totally fine. So, okay, imagine if like you lived in a world where, uh, you know, you had a certain s you had like a private sensation, right? Like you had a sensation of, uh, let's let's just call this like a private experience of redness, let's just say, okay? And that experience had a certain type of perceptual content about it. Okay? And that perceptual content, right? That thing had an accessibility relation to the speaker and only the speaker. Okay? So in this world, Danny was the only one who knew what it mean what it what it's like to experience redness. Let's just say. Okay. Are you following me so far? Well, maybe I So when we have like if you're talking about quality or experiential states, I guess I What do you mean by content? I thought you were talking about conceptual content, propositional content. I don't take

>> No, I said I said perceptual content, right? Now, perceptual content is either going to be conceptually structured or non-conceptually structured. So, I'm talking about perceptual content specifically. Now that could include things like you know experiences of redness for example or desires is another type of perceptual content so on and so forth.

>> Does that make sense? Well, but you're saying okay, so perception, right? There's one there's a lot of senses of perception. Like if I perceive a tree, then that sort of implies that I believe that the tree is there and that that has content. But if you're talking you give an example of a perceptual state as being the experience of red, I don't the experience itself I wouldn't say has propositional content or conceptual content. So I'm I'm

>> I I agree. I don't think that that experience has conceptual content either. Right. But so that but that's you're you're sort of jumping the gun here, right? We we're going to get to that point, right?

>> So,

>> okay. So, now you kind of understand the concept of the fact that given the existence of this perceptual content that that thing is going to have an accessibility relation to the speaker and only the speaker. Okay, cool. Now,

>> that by accessibility, I didn't I we didn't get that far, but accessibility meaning like it's private.

>> Yes, it's a private sensation. That's what I when I say accessibility relation, I'm just talking about

>> all of this is just to say that we have experiences that are private.

>> Yeah. Okay. So, that that's one way to put it, but there's a further point than that. That's not all I'm saying.

>> It's just like this is the most convoluted stuff I've ever

>> No, no. Well, because there's a there's important there's Okay. So, that would be like a sort of like weakened straw man of the view. That's why I wouldn't phrase it like that. There's like important content in there that you're sort of missing out on. Okay.

>> Okay.

>> Yeah. So one of which is the fact of the distinction between conceptual and non-conceptual items in you could say the mental or conceptual schema for example right those things are going to be relevant which you didn't mention in your articulation of the view right like for example so there's a lot of things that you're kind of missing out on but that's fine so I just want to keep going with this example okay so in this world Danny has a private sensation of redness and Danny's the only one who knows what it's like to experience red okay now if now you could sort of describe to to me what it's like to imagine if everybody else in this world did not have any uh sensation, right? They didn't have any ability to experience redness, let's just say, right? And you tried to describe to everybody else what it's like to experience red, right? And let's say that you did this by way of explaining all the relevant facts about redness. Let's just say all the relevant physical facts, right? All the relevant physical facts about color perception, for example, yada yada yada. You do all of that. Do you think that these other people would know what it is like to experience red?

>> I mean, I should say no, but my my views of Qualia are are not very formed. So, I you know, I mean, I'll

>> that's that's fine. You don't have to have some sophisticated view of Qualia to answer that question.

>> Okay. Well, well, some people deny Well, we're talking about experiential states, right? So, there's you could be an illusionist, right? I mean, and then the whole argument, where does the argument go from here,

>> right? But you're But you're not an illusionist, though, right?

>> I mean, you know, Lance Bush is like kind of talked about illusionism,

>> but we're not talking to Lance Bush right now. We're talking to Danny.

>> The point is that I don't have solid views of Qualia, right?

>> Which is which is fine. You don't have to have solid views. The point is that you agree that in this world, you know, given the fact that these other people don't have access to that private sensation, that they would not in fact know what it is like to experience redness, right?

>> But if I don't have a theory of qualia, how am I to answer the question?

>> You you can you don't have to have a theory of qualia to answer the question.

>> Why not? Explain to me.

>> What do you I don't see how you need to like What are you talking about? you made the claim that I don't need a theory of qualia to answer your question,

>> right? And and I'm saying that I don't see how you need to.

>> Okay? Because part of the theory of qualia is like how how you know the epistemology of qualia, right? In fact, that's one of the most interesting parts of qualia is it's said to be only epistemically accessible by the one that has the qualitative state. I you know, maybe that's right, maybe that's wrong. I don't really have a formed out view.

>> Okay. Yeah, that's totally fine. But that's not really engage. Okay, so that's not really engaging with what I'm saying right now. We can just sort of the only reason why I'm giving you this example is to elucidate on the previous point that I was making about how certain types of private sensational states cannot in fact enter into rational relations that provide a systemic justification for our beliefs. That's the only reason why I gave you this sort of uh color [music] example. Okay. Oh, the timer is up.

>> I'll give you more time if you want. It's up to you.

>> Yeah. So um if you understand the sort of case example that I gave you previously about the color perception thing knowing that you know you could explain all the relevant physical facts about qualia and it still be the case that they don't have access to what it means to experience redness right you can sort of think about it like in the way that subjectivists want to frame their moral language when they treat all of their moral semantics in such a way where those things have a private accessibility relation to the speaker and the speaker alone which is the sort of view that you take right so on your view when you use moral semantics

>> what view do I what view do you guy

>> that that's what I was about to explain. Right. So on your view, all of your moral semantics are just reduced down to your preferences. So when you say some action, I guess you don't use the term morally good like you said last time that we debated, but when you say somebody should do something, right, all all of your moral semantics on should, ought, you know, reason to, all of those things are just indexed to your specific stances about it. Correct.

>> Or or a group of peoples that agrees with me. Ours. Yeah.

>> Or a group of people. Okay. So, do you take it that those things are publicly accessible?

>> Sure.

>> Your preferences are publicly accessible.

>> Do you you should know that some of my some of my preferences, right?

>> Well, okay. So, in what way are your preferences publicly accessible?

>> Well, in the same way that you're inferring that I have a preference to to have to be here to debate you, right?

>> You know that, right?

>> Okay. Okay. So by Okay. So when you say that your preferences are publicly accessible, you're saying that I can make inferences about the things that you prefer

>> that you know you know that other people have preferences and

>> right and by know you're talking about an inferential an inference that I'm making about the relevant content that you've given me.

>> Yeah. And that it's true, right? You can't infer to something that's false and then saying you know it. Um but the the point is is that it yeah you you know what my preferences are from time to time and many of your friends and families and other peers. Okay, cool. So that's that's one move that the non-conceptualist can make. They can make the move that you know these preferences are public in which case it would be the case that uh these things can provide reasons for justification. But it still is the case that these preferences themselves are non-conceptual in character. And given the fact that they're non-conceptual in character, they're not the types of things that can co or rather that are co-extensive with the logical space of reasons in such a way where they can provide adequate justification for our moral belief. So the issue that I have or the issue that I'm reporting here with your view rather is very simple, right? The fact that your preferences as those private sensational states are non-conceptual in character, those things cannot be the types of things that provide adequate justific. I'm not saying

>> you're committed to that claim. Why?

>> Because you agree that preferences are non-conceptual.

>> I never agreed to that.

>> You you did previously when you said that you don't think that those specific sensations or those specific perceptual content are conceptual.

>> They're the distinct. Look, preferences are intentional states. They're not qualia.

>> Okay. So, do you think preferences are conceptual?

>> Well, they have content if that's what you mean by conceptual. Yes.

>> No. I Something can have content and be non-conceptual. So I'm asking you if you think that preferences are conceptually structured in such a way where we can make you know inferential relations from them and they can provide justification for our beliefs.

>> Absolutely.

>> How show me.

>> Yeah. Like if I desire to make money then given a bunch of other commitments and how you know the kind of being that I am in my society and you know I I you know the desire for money would probably commit me to getting a job. I desire now to get a job because I want money, right?

>> would commit you. How would they commit me?

>> I'm not saying they would commit you.

>> That's what the problem is. Is that they don't have an there's no accessibility relation to agents outside of yourself.

>> Why would my commitments commit you to anything?

>> That's what the problem is, Danny. You're starting you're starting to get it, right? Is that if you're treating moral language in that way, right? When you say you should do something, all of those things are just indexed to you and you only, not to anybody else.

>> Okay. Do you have a commitment to make money?

>> Sorry. Do you have a commitment or desire to make money?

>> Yeah, but you're just dodging the question.

>> No, no. The point is that I know you do, right? So then I can make I can make arguments for what you should do. K, go get a job.

>> You know, like

>> you're you're still not really engaging with the question.

>> What's the question again? K.

>> Okay. So here, okay, so here's what the statement is. Rather, the statement is that given that

>> not a question

>> that I said that's why I clarified and said statement, Danny, just calm down.

>> You accuse me of not answering the question WHEN YOU MADE NO QUESTION. OKAY, so here's the question and then here's the statement afterward. Okay, so since you're crying about me not asking you this question. Okay, so the question that I asked you was how is it the case that number one preferences are conceptually structured in such a way where we can inferentially right or rather where we can make uh inferences from these uh perceptual content in such a way where they can provide moral justification for our beliefs. And then the statement that I made afterward was this, right? The statement that I made was that I don't see how your preferences specifically or your value set, right? That those things are going to provide adequate motivation for agents outside of yourself, especially concerned in deals about morality, right?

>> Okay. There there are two questions and and frankly I only remembered the the one that you just asked. But the so the second one I make a subjectivist like me okay some kind of agent uh sorry the app praiser relativist we're fine to say that it's not enough to say that I want something that that therefore you should do something as according to your own motivations right I that the but there's still room to say hey K you should do xyz because I might know what you want to do or your commitments or the fact that you might very probably will regret if you don't do what I Okay. Right. That's compatible with my view. Um

>> this is not you're not engaging with me. You're just kind of saying that you know that I or you know that I know that I have certain preferences. But that's not what the issue is. And that's not what the issue that I'm levying here. Right. The issue that I'm levying here is not even really one about whether or not you have epistemic access to my, you know, sort of uh perceptual experiences. Right. The the problem that I'm levying here against you, Danny, is that your specific perceptual experiences cannot even be the types of things that can be that can provide inf that can provide proper inferential justification for our moral beliefs. Right. Concerning the moral domain,

>> but I don't think my desires are experiential states.

>> Okay. So you Okay. So wait, sorry. You said you don't think desires are experiential states.

>> You need you need to read a basic book on Ju just answer the question. You think that desires are not experiential states?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. So, what do you take desires? What do you take what do you take? Okay. They're intentional states. And what do you mean by intentional states?

>> They're about things, right? That I mean that's the that's the dictionary definition, but I can elaborate. The idea is that intentional states are uh normally about propositions. Uh so if I desire that um you know I could I I hope that um I believe that usually a proposition could follow right so those are intentional states whereas experiential states or qualia are not about anything right they're you know

>> you don't you don't think qualia is about you don't think qualia has like intentionality built into it like okay so

>> for what do you like when you say qualia right usually what most people mean by that term term is just a type of experience that has a what about factor to it. Right? A what about or like a what it is like or sorry what it is like factor about it. Right.

>> And you corrected yourself. Well, it's not what about, it's what it's like.

>> Yes. And you're saying you're saying that you're saying that qualia does not include what it is likeness about it.

>> No, I said it doesn't. It's not aboutness in the sense that people when they describe intentionality, it's what it's like. You're you're you're like you think you thought Okay. So, okay. So, when you said previously that desires are not experiential states, you meant to say that they're not they don't have a what about factor to it. They have a what is life factor.

>> Well, there might some people argue that there is a kind of phenomenal component to desire, but I don't think that's necessary to it.

>> Sorry, that there's a phenomenal component to desire you or quality. I didn't hear you.

>> Yeah. When people sometimes when people express desires, they're feeling something associated with the desire. But I'll give you an example where that's not the case. Like I desire right now that none go hungry in Austria and Vienna, right? I desire that. But that there's no qualia or phenomenal like phenomenology associated with that,

>> right? But the point is that like your desires, you reporting your desires to somebody else about the things that you care about, the things that you, you know, the what it is like aspect about Danny's specific experiences. The point is that those things are not going to provide moral justification for anybody else's beliefs except for Danny's, right?

>> Which is which is which is like what the subjectivist brain rod is. Is that when you use morality, you're just talking about things that you know only matter to you and you only when in fact that's not how morality functions.

>> I want everyone to listen. I have said time and time again that when I utter hypothetical norms about what you should or shouldn't do that can be indexed to me uh people that agree with me or even people that I'm trying to convince to do something differently than I think that what they're about to do.

>> Yeah. But it's not about convincibility though, right? It's about whether or not those people

>> whether No. Yeah. But that's what you're that's what you describe moral discourse to be is it's just about you convincing other people about your values. But I'm positing here that that's not what morality is about. Right? Morality is not just simply about two people sitting down, one person reporting their, you know, preferences, the other person reporting their preferences and saying, "Hey, I hope I convince you someday about my preferences." I think morality is about reasons in favor of an action. Right? And those reasons are going to either be

>> Okay.

>> Like if you would allow um who is this? Bobo. If you would allow him to

>> If you're fine with him finishing that

>> Let him finish and then I'd like to respond and we can do closing.

>> Okay. If you both want to get a last word, that's fine. Go ahead.

>> Yeah. Yeah, sure. Sure. Sure.

>> You You were finishing. Go ahead. No, you you can say your last word and I'll say my first.

>> A subjectivist does not need to say that all moral talk is about me me. It could be us. It could be other agents can be included, right? And also we could give arguments where you and I have a shared value, but you're uh and we think that and I think there's some entailment of that value that you don't think there is. Right? So I can give arguments that way where it is true that you should desire XYZ even though you don't have that desire for XYZ. Right? Go I guess we could do closing. That's what I wanted to say.

>> Okay. Cool. Yeah. So I just want to kind of go over a few things that happened throughout this debate and then I'll sort of give my uh I guess that would be my closing statement for today. Um so we started off I asked Danny an initial question. I said does he take the view that moral propositions exhaustively uh you know express hypothetical reasons? He said, "No, they don't exhaustively express hypothetical reasons, but on his sort of specific way that he uses moral language that they most of the time are hypothetical reasons." And then we sort of had like a, you know, I guess you could say a hiccup in a place where I asked him if he takes that those things are conditional. He said that they're not. And then he said that he didn't understand what I was asking. It turns out that he actually thinks that they are conditional. And then I gave them an amoral case. Amoralist case specifically. Now, here was the case. If you know for people in the audience who don't know what an amoralist is, an amoralist is just any given agent that has access or knowledge about all of the relevant moral norms, right? So they're not confused or there's not a lack of access to the moral norms. They have access to all of these things. They know about it. They're aware of it and they just simply don't care or they're not motivated to converge with these moral norms. Right? So I gave them a very specific case of an amoralist where this person right is a rapist and they have all of their hypothetical reasons are indexed to graing a specific woman right so Danny eventually said that uh you know it would be the case that this person has no reasons to not grape the woman okay now I think this is obviously [ __ ] insane right it's very obviously the case that they still have a reason not to grape the woman despite the fact that all of their personal stances don't converge with that reason. Okay, so this is at least some weak evidence that there's at least one categorical reason why they shouldn't do that action and that morality is not just about hypothetical reasons, right? And then we went down a further line of objections. I gave him the non-conceptualist rejection or excuse me rather objection which is just to say that given the fact that preferences are non-conceptual in character meaning that those things are not the types of things that are co-extensive with the logical space of reasons they're not the types of things that we can make proper inferences from. Those things are ruled out as the kinds of items that can provide reasonable justification for our epistemic and our moral beliefs concerning the moral domain. And Danny's response was that he said that he doesn't really have a theory of qualia and somehow his theory of qualia turns on whether or not that argument is successful. And then Danny also said specifically that [clears throat] um that he doesn't think that that's a problem because he takes a view where preferences are public. And I said, well, it's still the case that you know uh the fact that these preferences are non-conceptual in character cannot in fact be reasons for a subject in the sense that they can provide motivation for any subject to do anything. And then lastly, I think what the, you know, another issue that I see with the subjectivist or at least this version of subjectivism is that uh, you know, all you can really talk about is things that matter for the sake of yourself, right? Now, you can hope to convince other people about the things that you care about specifically, right? But in often times most people just don't really care, right? Like if you were walking down the street, I don't think the average person is going to give a [ __ ] about what Danny specifically values, right? That like that's just not how morality works. In fact, I don't think that's how most people deal with morality. I don't think that's how most people talk about morality. Most people talk about morality as if there are reasons that count in favor of something. People think that you can be correct and incorrect about your moral justifications for abortions. People think that you can be inconsistent about certain things that you have or rather certain beliefs that you have concerning your moral domain. So on and so forth. All of those things are conceptual in character. They're cognitive. And those things seem to be, you know, categorical at least in some sense, right? So, uh, the biggest issue that I had there is that, you know, the grape is reductio. Obviously, I think that's [ __ ] insane. There's an obvious intuition that is not accounted for on Danny's specific version of moral subjectivism, and his preferences are not even conceptual. So, those are the three issues that I have with his view. With that being said, I rest my time.

So, I opened this debate with, you know, I I really think that a lot of the moral discourse that I participate in has to do with what we care about, our shared values, what you care about, what I care about, kind of comparing comparing those two, I guess, domains. Um, but ironically, the person that said that appealed to caring more than anyone, more than me was K, right? Look at his closing, right? He no one gives a [ __ ] I don't care. People would have, you know, this is if any if anything if you just heard some of this talk, right? It's it's hard to believe that he's not a subjectivist, right? I agree with you, K. I think if anything matters, it has to do with caring. Okay? You have to care about it for it to matter on my view, if there's a sense of mattering that's independent of what you care about or what I care about or what anyone else cares about, it's just worthless. Okay. on my view and it seems like based on your closing statement you sort of agree with me. I got really no good objections to subjectivism. Um I again we can accommodate for uh cases where let's say someone wants to um uh to to grape someone and you stipulate that they have no desire to not rape them, right? The subjectivist still has cards here, right? We can tell that person, look, you really don't want to do this. Okay. What we're about to do is appeal to other values that they probably have like a desire to um not go to jail from ranging from that to look, you're going to regret the harm that you're causing, right? I promise you, buddy. Like here the statistics of people that regret this sort of crime, right? And that might cause them to form a desire to note. We do this all the time. If Jeffrey Dmer kidnapped you, okay, uh and then was about to do the deed, right? The most people what they would appeal to is his sensitivities, the things that he cares about. No, no, no, no. Look, I promise you I won't tell the police. I promise. Look, man, you don't want to do this, right? I here's why you don't want to do this. You want to go to jail. Like, you want to ruin your life. We appeal to what people care about in cases where there are moral there's moral opposition/disagreement. Okay? If you start [ __ ] talking about Kant, right, or Kay's ridiculous moral theory, God knows what it is, okay? Um, Jeffrey Dama will kill you faster. All right. Um, and probably won't even eat you. Not even worth it. Okay? So, I'm saying I think morality has to be something that you care about. Kay is saying it's independent of our caring about structures. And I think that's the insanity, not my position.

>> No. Um, yeah, Danny, I think that was a good debate for the most part. I think, you know, we tried to sort of get a little bit rhetorical there in the middle, but I think for the most part, you know, we sort of had a very substantive debate. Um, you were good faith for the most part. I was pretty good faith. That was, uh, that was enjoyable. That was an enjoyable conversation. So, thank you for having a conversation with me. And then also, I just want to kind of notice that, uh, Danny is like a literal professor, right? So, he he knows

>> Wait, let me clarif I'm just I'm an instructor, right?

>> Instructor. Yeah. But you you have like a bachelor's in philosophy and so on and so forth. So you're probably one of the more formidable opponents that I've had. But that was a very good conversation.

>> I appreciate the the nice words. Thanks for hosting. Thanks for Bobo and is it Honey? Yeah. Thank you all. Um you have a good night.