>>10786119What are you talking about? Are you the type of idiot who doesn't realize that there is no difference between empirical observation and rationalist deduction?
By seeing and observing in my life, and all animal life, that pain is bad, I have empirically observed that the moral axiom "pain is to be minimized" exists objectively a priori, because an empirical observation IS an objective rationalist proof, and a rationalist proof is an empirical observation.
It becomes an objective moral axiom that pain is immoral to perpetuate as we have observed it's immorality as a synthetic a priori. Nothing subjective whatsoever about it.
Now here's the part where you either accept you are wrong and learn, or you post some trite midwit response about how "PhILoSoPhY Is JuSt wOrD gAmES" or something along those lines which will do nothing but serve as empirical evidence (and thus rationalist proof) that you don't know what you're talking about.
