Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

[TomC]

I'm still having trouble grasping it, I'd appreciate you expanding on your post.

What specifically are you struggling to grasp? (is it my response or moral realism/anti-realism in general?)

Well, let me first point out again, I'm not particularly schooled in moral philosophy.

Honestly, I'm having trouble with both. What I was asking you about was specifically your post. I totally get that Bomb was giving me a simplistic primer to the basic concepts, not a nuanced view. So, I'm asking you to describe what you meant by "the distinction is quite as clear cut".
Tom

 

[The AntiChris]

So, I'm asking you to describe what you meant by "the distinction is [not] quite as clear cut".
Tom

To paraphrase and simplify, Bomb20 was saying that the first claim (about meat-eating) is normally intended as a factual statement (i.e.true/false independent of anyone's opinion) whereas the latter (about 'Surströmming') is normally intended intended as an opinion. My response was that this distinction, in my opinion, does not consistently hold. In other words, in common usage, both can be intended as factual statements and both can be intended as personal opinions.

If you want to learn about moral realism, try this for a start:  Moral Realism.

 

[Bomb#20]

Unsurprisingly, I don't think the distinction is quite as clear cut as you imply.

I could argue the point, but that would just lead to the inevitably lengthy follow-up to-and-fro. I take it your post was for TomC's benefit.

 

[The AntiChris]

Unsurprisingly, I don't think the distinction is quite as clear cut as you imply.

I could argue the point, but that would just lead to the inevitably lengthy follow-up to-and-fro.

Good thinking.