If you mean the issue of metaethics, you have a problem. Arguments are clearly relevant to metaethics or else Elizier’s fails by default for being an argument.
If you mean the issue of spelling, see my argument.
1- This is a very clear ad hominem- there is no possible way in which spelling errors would suggest a lower probability of me being right.
2- I meant no disrespect whatsoever. However for me making arguments at this level is difficult and I have to devote a lot of thought to it. If I were to devote thought to correcting spelling errors as well, I would not be able to make intelligent arguments.
there is no possible way in which spelling errors would suggest a lower probability of me being right
In general this is false. For example, frequent spelling errors (which is not the case here) signal inability to attend to detail, and may thus indicate low intelligence or bad epistemic habits. There are alternative possible causes for that, but it’s still evidence, unless screened off by knowledge of those alternative causes.
(Apart from that, probability of being right may be irrelevant when evaluating an abstract argument that is not intended to communicate new information apart from suggesting inferences from their own knowledge to the reader.)
O.K- that much could be true, so I was slightly wrong there. But even a moron can come up with an intelligent argument in theory. In theory, if the evidence suggested I was a moron but in other ways suggested I was right, then concluding I was right and got lucky would be the correct answer. Therefore, unless you’re significantly unsure about the argument it shouldn’t really apply- i.e. weak evidence at best.
You keep systematically misspelling it, even after having read my comment. It’s annoying.
Spelling isn’t really a big deal compared to actual arguments- my comments are still just as comprehensible.
No. Bad spelling after being corrected demonstrates disrespect for the community. Your arguments are irrelevant if you don’t obey basic courtesy.
Arguments (in general, not focusing on these particular arguments) are not irrelevant, they are just not relevant to this issue.
If you mean the issue of metaethics, you have a problem. Arguments are clearly relevant to metaethics or else Elizier’s fails by default for being an argument.
If you mean the issue of spelling, see my argument.
1- This is a very clear ad hominem- there is no possible way in which spelling errors would suggest a lower probability of me being right.
2- I meant no disrespect whatsoever. However for me making arguments at this level is difficult and I have to devote a lot of thought to it. If I were to devote thought to correcting spelling errors as well, I would not be able to make intelligent arguments.
In general this is false. For example, frequent spelling errors (which is not the case here) signal inability to attend to detail, and may thus indicate low intelligence or bad epistemic habits. There are alternative possible causes for that, but it’s still evidence, unless screened off by knowledge of those alternative causes.
(Apart from that, probability of being right may be irrelevant when evaluating an abstract argument that is not intended to communicate new information apart from suggesting inferences from their own knowledge to the reader.)
O.K- that much could be true, so I was slightly wrong there. But even a moron can come up with an intelligent argument in theory. In theory, if the evidence suggested I was a moron but in other ways suggested I was right, then concluding I was right and got lucky would be the correct answer. Therefore, unless you’re significantly unsure about the argument it shouldn’t really apply- i.e. weak evidence at best.