Do you agree that this specific rock would exist at some times after all the people are dead, and at other times after all the people are dead, it would not exist? So, after all the people are dead, if it is to be either true or false that the specific rock exists "an hour" after all the people are dead, then some one must interpret, "an hour", and measure "an hour" after all the people are dead. Therefore it is a nonsensical question, because the rock exists at sometimes and other times it does not exist, and there is no one to interpret "an hour", and to measure "an hour", to see how this relates to the existence of the rock. The rock may or may not exist "an hour" after all the people are dead, and it is meaningless nonsense to ask such a question. To presuppose that the question may be answered is to presuppose something impossible, something contradictory, that "an hour" can be interpreted and measured when there is no one to interpret and measure. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is insane. It serves only as an example of very bad logic: a test for someone to analyse, identify the errors, and write up an explanation. Besides that, it is of no value.

Thanks for all of these tests, I suppose. I remain as sharp as ever.

I feel like I must be a little mad to keep this up for so long. Maybe for even trying to begin with, knowing what it would be like.

Oh well. Fuck it. Some of it has been hilarious, like missing the point about missing the point. That's still cracking me up now. :lol:

What is color? — Mww

Colour is visible light. Different colours are different ranges of wavelengths.

This is not correct. A thing has length if it is measurable, it is measurable if it has length. It need not be measured to have length. In fact it must have length (i.e. be measurable) in order to be measured. — Janus

Thank God. Perhaps hearing it from someone else will help.

Who is the one being unreasonable? — Metaphysician Undercover

Ooh, that's a toughie. You. Your fake conversation between us misrepresents what I'd say. Straight away, I wouldn't even say, "That rock has a measurement". I would say something along the lines of what I have been saying throughout the discussion, not what you've been so desperately trying to get me to say, or what you've simply been imagining me to say. I would say that the rock is of a certain length, and that that length could be 10cm, but that without measuring it, we won't know whether it's 10cm, even if it is.

There's nothing unreasonable about that. There's nothing unreasonable about such an unknown truth. You either don't see this or you just can't bear to accept it.

I have withdrawn from society. I haven't left my house to go anywhere in almost a month. I plan to work online and read my books in my small room. This all sounds pessimistic and depressing; but, I'm happy that I found my way in life.

To be honest, I've become a misanthropic cynic. But, who's judging me? — Wallows

I don't eat or sleep properly - I haven't eaten all day until just now, for instance - I have terrible memory, and I often act like a sociopath or someone with Asperger's. There are some basic day-to-day stuff that I've just stopped doing, which leads to problems. I'm not communicating with people in my life as I'm expected to. I'm barely coping. All of this is causing big problems for me. I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with me. It's obviously something, even if it doesn't have a name like you get with a mental disorder. Some of this sociopath stuff fits. I got my job through superficial charm, and I use it on customers, but the people I work with have clocked on that I'm a robot, and they expect me to be like them all of the time and not stand there being unsociable, which is difficult and draining. My job requires me to be an actor on different levels almost at all times.

But there's always a bright side, I suppose. This pizza I'm eating right now tastes good.

They've been harassing me since I moved into my house. It's insane. I don't even know what to say. — Wallows

Life is full of trouble. We all end up in it. There's literally a sort of river of shit outside of the building to my apartment, not far from my ground floor apartment. The outside of the building smells like raw sewage. I think I'm going to get fired from my job soon because I'm too incompetent and it's very difficult for me to change my behaviour, because, in part, of what I suspect are some undiagnosed health issues I have. And that's not even the half of it! What else can we do but try to cope as best we can?

Translation:

“I can’t define it.” — Michael Ossipoff

I went over this. Your reply is nonresponsive and doesn't progress the discussion. Whether I can or can't, defining it isn't necessary if we understand the meaning, which we do. Saying otherwise is a performative contradiction. Thus, your claim has been refuted.

You know what a game is, even if you can't successfully define it. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein at all?

1. You point to a cabinet whose contents are unknown, and say “Is a rock there?” — Michael Ossipoff

And you're going to pretend that you don't understand what is being asked there?

2. Or you say “Is there the rock that I referred to, after everyone dies?”. (“Exists that rock?”) — Michael Ossipoff

And you're going to pretend that you don't understand what is being asked there?

Those are two entirely different kinds of question, and “There is…” is being used entirely differently, with a different meaning. (..an unknown or absent meaning, in #2) — Michael Ossipoff

The part about existence is no different in either. They're just two different scenarios, two different contexts, and you understand what's being asked in both cases, so there shouldn't be a problem. If there is, then it's of your own making.

As you meant it when you asked if there still is that rock after everyone has died, “There is” means “Exists”.
.
“Exists that rock, after everyone has died?” accurately translates your question.
.
It’s a matter of whether or not you can define “Exist”. — Michael Ossipoff

It doesn't make a difference if you use "is" or "exists", as they have the same meaning per my usage here.

And nope, it's just a matter of whether what I'm saying is understandable, but it is, so we can move on from that.

So you’re a realist. I’m sorry, does it hurt? They got remedies for that these days, ya know. — Mww

It hurts each time someone repeatedly fails to grasp a perfectly reasonable argument that I've made in support of realism, but I'm thinking that maybe I like the pain. Either that or I'm a perfectly reasonable fool.

So what kind of realist are you? Scientific realist? Metaphysical realist? — Mww

I'm not sure what you'd call my sort of realism, and I don't particularly care. Metaphysical realism? Does it matter what we call it? We could just call it my kind of realism.

Describe the world in your own words. — Mww

There's a whole bunch of stuff: rocks, planets, trees, people, computers, electrons, space. There's also stuff like judgements, feelings, thoughts, concepts, numbers, and language, which seem of a different category. But whatever there is, all of it, that's the world. And if you removed some of the stuff, like people, judgements, feelings, and thoughts, then all that's left: that would be the world. There would still be planets, for example. There's no good reason to believe that they'd suddenly cease to exist along with people, judgements, thoughts, and feelings.

Don't you see that it would be nonsensical to say that the wall is two metres if it hasn't been measured to be two metres? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not nonsensical in the context in which I'm saying it, which is not the usual context. In saying it in the usual context, it wouldn't make sense for me to say that, because it would suggest that I had knowledge of its length, when I hadn't measured it to find out that knowledge. In my context, on the other hand, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm not suggesting anything about knowledge that I've acquired through measuring. I'm just saying that it would necessarily be of a certain length - for example, that it would be two metres in length. I'm not suggesting that I actually know the wall to be that specific length, just that it would have a specific length, and that that specific length could be two metres. It could be an unknown truth.

You must learn to stop misinterpreting what's being said!

In conclusion, idealists of the sort that Metaphysician Undercover is are extremely unreasonable, or at least he makes an extremely unreasonable case for his sort of idealism against my sort of realism. Other sorts of idealism might be more reasonable, and other idealists might do a better job of it. However, my sort of realism has easily outperformed the competition in this discussion, as I have demonstrated throughout.

People apply standards of measurement in their acts of measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, they do, and that's obviously irrelevant, but you fail to see that. It's probably obvious to those who aren't wearing blinkers, and aren't unreasonable. Before you ask why it's irrelevant, first ask yourself: are there people in the scenario?

You're missing the point for about the millionth time now. The question is not whether people apply standards, which they do, but whether the standards would apply, which they would. People apply standards for a purpose, like finding out the length of a wall. That's completely irrelevant with regards to what I'm talking about. If the length of the wall is two metres, then the length of the wall is two metres. You said earlier that a tautology is the strongest form of argument, so there you have it. Whether anyone has measured the wall to find out that it's two metres in length is completely irrelevant. Once again, this is your fundamental idealist error of confusing epistemology and metaphysics. What you are stuck talking about are requirements for knowledge, not requirements for what's the case, and you consistently fail to realise this.

If you can't even pick up something as simple as that, then why should I continue?

The rules do not apply themselves. So "an hour", as a standard of measurement cannot apply itself, and measure an hour, after all the people are dead. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am tired of this sophism. Your wording is wrong. We don't ask whether plants grow themselves in nature. They simply grow in nature. And the rules would likewise simply apply, not apply themselves. You're suggesting the requirement of a subject in your wording, and that's not proper philosophy, that's sophism, and it's inherently unreasonable. I've exposed it for what it is. I'm not going to keep doing that with no end in sight.

The hour doesn't need to be measured for it to pass. You don't need to be constantly staring at a clock like a complete moron for an hour to have passed. No one does. We don't even need to exist. If we were to die now, not only hours, but years would pass. Hundreds of years. What? You think that God is there with a stopwatch or something? I hate to break it to you, but that's a load of baloney.

I am curious what influences you to produce this sort of sophism. Do you get it from a book? The internet? Or do you create it yourself?

I want you to explain how a standard of measurement applies without someone applying it. To me, that's quite obviously nonsensical. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've done so already. An argument from repetition is an informal fallacy. It's not reasonable to ask me to do something I've already done, let alone done multiple times. If it's a tactic of yours to get me to give up through nausea, then that's immoral, and it is what a sophist would do.

Not understanding is one thing, but when I've already given you an explanation, then you should go back to that explanation before expecting me to simply repeat it just because you want me to. And I shall now leave you to think on that.

That poll should be multiple choice, not that that's currently an option here given the forum software, even if you wanted it to be. I would vote for all three.

I vote yay. It's like you opened up my soul and read the very words that described my being. Thank you for that. Thank you. — Hanover

Any time, sweet cheeks. :kiss:

Now, time to order an extra large pizza. I have to start somewhere, otherwise I'll never be a beautiful butterfly or be burned alive. It's all or nothing with me.

Yeah, it's not even funny anymore. And, they beat me to it, they threw rocks at my house already. — Wallows

Preemptive strike them with the best that you've got. Throw rocks, throw your own feaces, throw your little old nan if you have to. Can you get hold of frag grenades?

One primary purpose of education should be to kick the stupid out of people. If you've gone through a process whereby you've had the stupid kicked out of you, then that can be helpful in many ways - ways which you can probably think of yourself, unless you're too stupid: in which case, would you like me to kick it out of you?

But there are states of living persons that don't amount to mental phenomena, too. — Terrapin Station

Like New York? That's a state of living persons, and I know where it's located. It's in Russia. You know, the other Russia. Not the Russia with a balding dictator, the Russia with a balding would-be dictator who is orange.

Yes. ( :lol: )

We have no control over the software. — Michael

That's just what they want you to think.

Members of this noble forum, if you elect me as your supreme leader, I will implement these proposals and more. You have my word.

You keep insisting that it's irrelevant, but your thought experiment references "an hour" after all human beings have died. So it's very relevant. We need to know how "an hour" fits into this scenario of no living human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover

You didn't answer my question. I guess this means that you couldn't figure it out, and that I must explain it to you.

The reason I consider the point that rules are human conventions to be irrelevant is because it is of no logical relevance to my argument. I have accepted that humans set language rules. This misses the point, because I argue that there's no justified reason for believing that the rules would cease to apply. They are a human convention only in some sense along the lines that humans come up with them.

This is where you send us around in circles by saying something in reply which begs the question, such as, "But of course they wouldn't apply, because no one would be there to interpret the meaning!", and maybe ask me a stupid question like, "Who would determine what it means?".

What do you want to know about my position regarding how an hour could pass that I haven't already said? Why should I repeat myself over and over again at your request? Why didn't you pay sufficient attention the first, second, and third time that I've explained it?

How is "a standard" which is used in the practise of measurement figure into your scenario of no living human beings? Your thought experiment scenario describes the existence of a standard, "an hour" after all humans are dead. How is that standard meaningful if there are no humans to use it in the act of measuring. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's currently used, obviously, because there exist people to use it. Would there exist people in the thought experiment? No. So would it be used? No. Would it apply? Yes. Why wouldn't it? Cue the never ending circle of you begging the question again without realising the error in what you're doing.

Would there be linguistic meaning? Yes. Would the meaning be understood? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to understand the meaning. Would the meaning be meaningful to anyone? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to find the meaning meaningful. Why would it be otherwise? Cue the never ending circle of you begging the question again without realising the error in what you're doing.

Notice how you exploit the ambiguity in your terms, and intentionally word what you say in a way which begs the question, just like a sophist would do. Are you a sophist? You certainly seem to act like one.

Okay, maybe @Terrapin Station has gone too far. I don't find it necessary to make his argument about brain states and locations. Morality is what's right and wrong. It doesn't make sense, at least to me, to ask where that's located, only where related things are located. Moral agents are located on Earth, along with broken puppies, the act of kicking them, and our moral judgements about them. We can sort that out into what's subjective and objective, and what's more or less relevant in certain contexts. There's no problem with this useful distinction between subjective and objective. It doesn't "fail".

My suggestion would be to display the name of the people who upvoted so we can determine if any favoritism is skewing the results. — Harry Hindu

We should have a committee, lead by me, to determine whether favouritism has skewed the results, who's responsible, and what actions are to be taken in light of our findings.

It won't be corrupt. You have my word.

Not sure why people are against it? It's just some tips about how to improve an argument and handle a dialectic properly. Weird. — Christoffer

Maybe because it's me, and I'm like a gadfly. A gadfly that doesn't just sting the horses, but makes fun of them, and speaks bluntly and sarcastically to them, telling 'em how it is. :lol:

If your idea is guilty by association with me, then that'd be a shame, because it's a good idea.

Yes I remember this. Then you went on to talk about rules, and Terrapin explained that rules are human conventions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then I would have explained why I consider that to be an irrelevant point. Can you think of why I might consider that point to be irrelevant? Or do I have to explain it?

So I thought you dismissed this line of thought. These are two different ways of using "hour". I interpreted "an hour" in your thought experiment as something measured, that's what you were insisting, "an hour" in relation to passing time, is something objective.' Now you claim to have used "an hour" as a unit of measurement. This means it is a standard, a convention for the act of measuring. After all the people die, how does "an hour", as a standard for measuring, relate to physical existence? It's just as nonsensical this way, as it is the other way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why on earth would you assume that I interpret stuff like that in a manner implying subjective dependency? This is the very problem.

I don't do that. I call an hour a unit of measurement, because that's what it is, and I don't interpret stuff like that in your manner which would obviously lead me to contradiction. That's obvious, surely. I mean, come on. Really?

If it's a standard, I claim that it's an objective standard. And that's perfectly consistent with my position, and with my usage of language.

And don't even think about misinterpreting "standard" as a judgement or anything of that sort. Ask if you're not sure of something, don't just assume, or at least try to apply the very minimum requirements of being charitable in your assumptions. Don't assume that I'm a bloody idiot whose saying something which is an obvious contradiction, like that something which requires a subject doesn't require a subject.

With all due respect, I think you have a lot to learn about logic, and you should be grateful for the effort I'm putting in and my patience.

Are you familiar with relativity theory. The meaning of "an hour" relative to physical existence is dependent on one's frame of reference. As a unit of measurement, "an hour" must be within the context of a frame of reference to have any meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I'm familiar to an extent. I suspect, however, that you're going to misapply the science in this context. Now, where does it say in relativity theory that the frame of reference must be a subject?

We very much disagree. You say there is information exchange; I say, there is not. — Galuchat

Yes. When I said that we don't "really" disagree, I meant that it was merely a semantic disagreement.

My wording is consistent with Shannon & Weaver's Mathematical Theory of Communication. — Galuchat

Ooh, lar de dar. :lol:

Your unplayable video scenario is an example of physical, not semantic, data encoding and messaging (transmission, conveyance, and reception). It would only be relevant to this discussion if there were some physical (e.g., sensory) cause for a person's inability to understand your posts. — Galuchat

It's called an analogy. Don't be so literal.

What's your problem? The information exchange is evident through the pages of discussion, and the people like you and I who are reading it. I can type up a post containing information about a logical fallacy. Someone else can read and understand it, yet fail to understand that they're committing the fallacy in an argument here that they've made. Or they might not even understand the fallacy, even if they think that they do. Thus, information exchange, yet lack of understanding.

This seems obvious. If your booky wook has lead you to believe otherwise, it's possible that it's mistaken, or, ironically, that you've misunderstood it, thereby proving the very point I'm making. Although those aren't the only possibilities.

But it seems very few want such a pinned post. Don't know why though... — Christoffer

Yeah, why aren't people speaking up? Speak up, people! Don't just vote and remain silent! Sheesh. What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? At present, four of you haven't explained your "Disagree" vote.

And what keeps you from writing it? — tim wood

Not my exceptional talent, that's for sure. :grin:

I don't have the ability to pin what I've written to the top of the front page. I would need a gurantee that it would be pinned to the top of the front page. And why even assume that I would need to write something up to begin with? It doesn't have to be me, and it doesn't have to be written, or at least not all of it. I wouldn't work from scratch. If it were down to me, I would get most of it from an online source, and simply copy and paste. Wikipedia has a list of logical fallacies, for example.

I don't, because it actually requires a bunch of additional "shoulds." "One should act in accord with one's moral views." "One should act in the most direct, efficient manner." Etc. There's nothing objective about an of that. — Terrapin Station

I made that same point about the requirement of an additional principle as well, and that its application is a subjective matter.

The objectivity I referred to acknowledging would boil down to something like: (the fact that) I feel this way about it. Or, like I said, something along the lines that acting contrary to your goals is detrimental to achieving those goals. These are not relevant for moral subjectivism in the context that matters.

That I feel this way about it is only objective in the sense of being a fact which doesn't depend on the subjective whatevers of anyone else, or even some if not all of my own subjective whatevers, like what I think. All that would matter is how I feel, which is both subjective and objective in different senses.

So in your view nonmental things can treat something with attention and kindness? — Terrapin Station

:lol:

The bright pixels of my monitor aren't treating my eyes very kindly right now.

Not very kindly at all...

Bed time for me! — VagabondSpectre

Just a thought: maybe it would be helpful if you scrapped the figurative lingo? Is it necessary? Is it a hindrance to understanding?

I've been around philosophy long enough to never assume that anyone might not be claiming something that seems insane to me. — Terrapin Station

:100:

For example, if fighting over access to the puppy reduces the amount of time that they would otherwise spend kicking it, then aggression for puppy control can be framed as an objectively immoral act in that situation because it directly disservices their moral values. — VagabondSpectre

From that framework, it can be noted that "immoral" is determined conditionally, not unconditionally; and also that it's relative, not absolute. That framework makes more sense than one which has the opposite requirements.

I acknowledge the objectivity there, but I don't think that it's necessarily right to call that "immoral". If I am one of those people, and I inadvertently act contrary to my aim of kicking the puppy, then I'm just being unreasonable. But if I have a principle which says that that behaviour is immoral, then sure, it would be immoral accordingly, but only relative to my principle, and only relative to my thoughts and feelings about its application. It wouldn't apply universally, even if I thought and felt that it should. If other people reject that principle, because they think and feel differently, then I can't demonstrate that they're objectively wrong, since our thoughts and feelings are inherently subjective, and there's no warrant for a transcendent standard to override one of us.

You can get some objective truth in moral subjectivism. That I have never denied. It is objectively true that I feel that kicking puppies is wrong, for example. But the moral subjectivist would be like, so what?

As is hopefully clear from the puppy example, the point I'm making is indeed a meta-ethical one (which may or may not relate to yours and Baden's disagreement or miscommunication). The truth of specific normative content is transitory, like the next optimal move in a given chess game, but the relationship between our desires and our lousy environment is not: achieving our own goals in a populated environment means considering the goals of others along with the environment we are in. In other words, morality isn't just and greedy hedonism, it's socially responsible hedonism in a world where intentions, methods,and outcomes can be fact-checked. (We could split semantic hairs regarding the "consideration" component, but when individuals extend no moral consideration whatsoever, no useful moral discussion with them can take place (they're a moot point). I prefer to describe the failure (or inability) to consider the needs of others as a breakdown of morality. Informally, it's as if morality itself is an ad hoc system of categorizing the various ways in which we might fail to consider the needs/values/goals/desires of others). — VagabondSpectre

This seems trivial to me in this context. Are you basically just saying what @Banno said, namely that despite differences in meta-ethics, normative ethics matters? And then you go on to make some normative points, like that the way that you judge it, we shouldn't be greedy, and we should be considerate of others. Maybe, like Banno, you judge that morality should be about everyone, about how "one" or "we all" should behave, and not particular, like how I should behave. Why should I care in this context, whether I agree or disagree? That does not seem to have any relevance, meta-ethically. It seems beside the point.

Note though that others, while they might not agree, are actually engaging. I hate to say it, but I think you're being a tad... unreasonable. :wink: — Baden

I've engaged to the extent of analysing what you've said, and reaching the conclusion that it misses the point. What more do you reasonably expect of me? If you can give me a good enough reason to reconsider that assessment, then I will do so.

Guys, the black-white distinction fails. You see, some things are black, and some things are white. Believe it or not, some things are even black and white. And it's the same for loads of other distinctions: dark-light, hard-soft, wet-dry, you name it.

Therefore, these distinctions all fail. Mind = blown.

I'm not asking you to care. I suppose you replied to my post by accident. Keep your fingers under better control next time. — Baden

Predictable reaction. Okay, let's take me out of it then, because I suspect that your bias is now interfering. Presumably, you'd want a reasonable person to care. If so, then why would a reasonable person care about what you're saying, if what you're saying misses the point?

You're both talking past me. — Baden

Oh the irony.

Have a look at the schema and go from there. Where is the error? Let me put it this way, I'm claiming there is only social relations, which when packaged in individual bodies, we call 'persons' or 'subjects'. And there is no moral agency, no persons or subjects, without this constitution. So, I'm not just saying this or that, I'm saying the whole binary approach is wrongheaded and prevents a full view of where and how morality obtains. That doesn't mean the subject/object distinction is useless in every field but it's much more useful for scientific enquiry than philosophic / moral enquiry. — Baden

I'm going to speak bluntly and reply that I don't particularly care about what you're saying, unless you can show that it's of relevance to what I'm saying. I'm fine with granting that you can demonstrate a failure in the context that you want to talk about, but if that context is not the same as my context, then your demonstration of failure doesn't apply to what I'm saying, and the failure is more a failure of you to correctly identify what's relevant here.

If you think that you can demonstrate a failure in my context, then go ahead and try. Your context seems irrelevant.

If you want to work with my context, then go back and properly address my last reply.

I think it boils down more to finding a better way to talk about morality than fundamental disagreements about what it is. — Baden

The way that we talk about it, and the way that we interpret the way that we talk about it, is definitely of importance, and I don't think that @Banno has fared too well in demonstrating that he understands and appreciates this importance.

Is it as important as normative ethical matters? Agree or disagree, that itself doesn't even matter in this context. It's just a red herring.

Not trying to speak for Banno, but absolutely agree with him it fails. If the moral subject is both constituted of/by social relations and embedded in social relations, and the term 'objective' in terms of morality is that which applies equally to all moral subjects i.e. the complete world, or set of worlds, of social relations then the dichotomy fails. The 'objective' is in the 'subjective' as much as the 'subjective' is in the 'objective'. i.e. For the subject to function as moral agent, it is necessarily a socially constituted entity, in some sense both 'objective' and 'subjective'. — Baden

Do you want to draw this out, then? I think that if we do, it can be shown that you're making an error somewhere in relation to what I'm saying or suggesting about the subjective-objective distinction. Even if you show that it fails when applied to some particular context, that doesn't mean that it fails in general, or that it fails in the context that I'm talking about. I'm saying that we can take a particular aspect, and say of that aspect that it's subjective, and not objective, at the same time, and in the same sense, and in the same respect. What I suspect that yourself and Banno do is to fail that criteria. I suspect that you're talking about two different respects, say, that it's subjective in one respect, but objective in a different respect. That's not a contradiction, and the distinction obviously remains useful. I suspect that yourself and Banno are jumping to a conclusion and missing the point.

My moral subjectivism accepts the subjective aspect, and can acknowledge objective aspects, but simply points out that these objective aspects don't seem relevant in the way that a moral objectivist seems to suggest. Generally speaking, is there both? Yes, of course. The broken pup is objective. How I feel about it is subjective. But the question is, what's relevant with regards to morality, and in what sense, and why?

And how is this different from how we judge the cup to be blue? — Banno

Already been answered. Banno is making an argument from repetition fallacy.

Well, go on, then. But do so with an eye on my reply, which will be to take your explanation and paraphrase it into the discussion of the pup - again.

If someone looks at the cup and says it is not blue, then they are what we in the trade call wrong.

If someone looks at the broken pup and says this is permissible, then they are what we in the trade call wrong. — Banno

Yes, and with the latter, you're ignoring - perhaps deliberately - the importance of the sense in which different people use "wrong" in that context. Wrong absolutely, relative to nothing and no one? Wrong relative to a subjective standard of judgement? Surely you can see that these interpretations are not identical. Why are you hiding your interpretation? Don't you want to be exposed?

Yeah, but I have; the broken pup. — Banno

So we have the blue cup and the broken pup. The blue cup is blue, and the broken pup is broken. I accept that, and so does everyone else.

Now, how is this evidence of anything relevant?