The sad irony of the BLM movement is that none of those outcomes were related to race, either the deceased or the shooter, but activists injected the Race Card after the fact for political purposes. The Agenda, if you will.

Back to diversity versus equality, here's an interesting opinion piece recently published in the left-wing bubble called the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...

The first big fat mistake this author makes is trying to tie the stance against Affirmative Action with the Alt-Right movement. He twisted "intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions" into "the idea that white people are being discriminated against in higher education" without even knowing whether they meant White applicants or Asian applicants or other applicants. The second big fat mistake this author makes is questioning how race-based consideration policies "demands Justice Department action" without counting how many dollars and resources were wasted on Ferguson, same sex marriage, and transgender bathroom privileges; oh no, college admissions must lag way behind those other high priority DOJ issues. The third big fat mistake this author makes is his contemptuous comment, "government is an entity that swoops into your life to steal things from you so that it can give them to undeserving black people" which is basically the $50 trillion spent fighting the War on Poverty, so in this case the complainers are right. The fourth big fat mistake this author makes is praising BLM and again bashing counterpoints ("BLM is actually an insanely violent quasi-terrorist organization that literally advocates the murder of police officers") without admitting their hateful rhetoric ("DEAD COPS" "Fry 'em like bacon") plus the retaliation murders of police in NYC, Dallas and Baton Rouge directly linked to BLM, because blue lives don't matter. The fifth big fat mistake this author makes is ending his piece with "making it harder for African Americans to succeed" when the entire point of Affirmative Action is making it *easier* for Blacks to succeed compared to other races. Special treatment.

Compare to this 2015 piece about Princeton admission policies where Blacks are given 230 bonus SAT points for being Black, Hispanics are given 185 SAT points for being Hispanic, while Asians are penalized 50 SAT points for being Asian. This is racial discrimination by definition.

http://www.latimes.com/local/califo...

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/bomb-...

Diversity strikes again. Wherever there is diversity, there is strife and friction.

I wonder if this was done by liberal fascist anti-fa-crats to gin up more trouble and chaos?

I remember a time not long ago when no one ever heard the word mosque either on TV or in conversation. Mosques were "over there" where they belong.

If we want peace in the US, we need to get rid of the mosques and get rid of the Muslims. They don't belong here, Islam is not compatible with western values and Sharia Law is not compatible with the constitution.

Homosexuality is the <ultimate> virtue in the land of liberalism. Homosexuality is held above reproach in liberal culture and is considered better than love, courage, kindness, generosity and patience all rolled into one. Homosexuality is the golden calf of liberalism and is the central focus of their agenda, as it is the ultimate expression of anti-Christianity.

Liberals call for diversity and say (this is important, pay attention) that it is our GREATEST STENGTH. This means it is greater than anything else. Think about it.

But when you bring diversity to the LIBERAL TABLE and bring ideas that are different (diverse) than theirs, well all of a sudden diversity gets thrown out the window and run over in the street!

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...

Another angle to consider is <Cultural Appropriation> which allows people to get in your personal business and criticize your personal choices, like what Halloween costume you wear. This college student lectures a White man about his hair:

https://youtu.be/jDlQ4H0Kdg8

<But when you bring diversity to the LIBERAL TABLE and bring ideas that are different (diverse) than theirs, well all of a sudden diversity gets thrown out the window and run over in the street!>

Thoughtful liberals support diversity, but not diversity of thought.

<Big Pawn> I admire your tolerance toward different opinions, therefore I will disagree with you about homosexuality. Someone's sexual preference is none of my business, and what consenting adults do in their private lives is none of my business. I strongly oppose their methodology with the LGBTQ community forcing their agenda on everyone by using Big Government as a weapon - legal threats, judicial rulings, transgender bathroom privileges, shut down your business - and especially using children to fight their battles. You and I are on the same page about NAMBLA, and I understand your discomfort with Hollywood and Big Government promoting acceptance of the gay lifestyle (what some would call Big Sodomy) on others. I promise to leave it there as I know you have strong opinions, and I am tolerant of your strong opinions.

I applaud your crusade bringing tolerance to the intolerant in the Kibitzer's Café, except it is not a fair fight. This site favors Historians over Vandals, and they prefer "colorful characters" over responsible kibitzers. If you seriously expect the Administrators to follow their own rules, well that ship sailed long ago and won't be coming back until they drop this unnecessary social justice overlay rewarding repeat offenders with special treatment.

A few points about this remark.

1. The question has never been whether or not it is my business, your business or anyone's business, whatever business means in this context.

2. The question is about moral judgment because moral judgment, and the reason that is important is because it is the foundation of our law. When considering the morality of any given behavior, we determine the rightness or wrongness of it without regard to whether or not people engaging in this action are making it personal to us such that it becomes our business.

That is to say, when we say something is right or wrong, it is right or wrong (not because we said so, by the way) regardless of whether we personally experience it. So if two people collude to rob a bank in Madagascar, and someone asks me what I think of bank robbery, I won't reply, "Well, what two people do in Madagascar is not of my business" because that is not relevant to the question of the moral action.

3. To frame a moral action in terms of whether it is my business, or effects me personally, is a rather selfish context in which to consider morality, or anything for that matter. I saw an interview with a black guy that raped a white woman, and when he was in jail, they asked him if her suffering haunts him, and he said, "What do I care? She ain't no kin of mine". This is an example of framing it in that selfish context.

4. Another point is that when one is asked what they think of the morality of homosexuality and they answer, "it's not my business", what they are really saying is, "I refuse to answer and give voice to a moral judgment *because* my opinion is not relevant, and because it's controversial, I will just say this and slink away from this conversation".

It's this fourth point that is especially bothersome, because it indicates weakness in the face of evil, in the face of sin. The unclean, the evil, the people who love their sin and want to force it on everyone are *not* afraid, not weak about it and they fight, in your face, for what is wrong, because it's important to them.

If they should fight so hard for what is wrong and be bold, and not care what you think, then in turn it only emboldens them further to see a meek retreat where someone puts up both hands in submission, saying, "Don't look at me! I say it's not my business".

That's like when one is asked about the morality of abortion. Instead of saying that abortion is wrong, they refuse to speak the truth and instead sneak away from the question with, "Well, I think the states should decide". No one asked, "Do you think the feds or the state should decide", but this is the answer given.

<and what consenting adults do in their private lives is none of my business.>

Really? Well, I won't get into whether or not it has any effect on you or me, or society as a whole, even though I think it does, because as I explained, this is a dodge.

Not long ago, there was no argument about the morality of homosexuality. It was known to be wrong, and the people who were into it were viewed as having some sort of weird problem.

Just like nowadays, the idea of a man marrying his 21 year old consenting adult son is abhorrent, for the same reasons that homosexuality is abhorrent. To the people that say, "What two consenting adults do..." when they *dodge* the real question, I put the man marrying his adult son to them. Do you still say, "Sure, let them do it. Two consenting adults. None of my business"?

"Conservatives could "rebrand" as liberals. Seriously. We're for liberal democracy, liberal world order, liberal economy, liberal education. https://t.co/MvSbZCfLEZ"

I've been saying this for years, while old time, old fashioned, stuck in the mud liberals like <the tuna> and <perfidious> as well as <hmm>, foolishly celebrate when Republicans (who they think are conservatives) like Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and other mainstreamers "fail" to do a, b or c in congress. They are still fooled by the dog and pony show. They see the (R) after the person's name and they know who to hate.

Little do they realize, as I've told them time and again, that the only difference between the GOP and the Democratic party are the party platforms. Other than that, the GOP tells lies to conservatives that are fooled by them, the Democrats tell lies to the libs fooled by them, and in the back room, they run the most corrupt show on earth and they do it together, happily. When the cameras are on them, when cspan is on, it's show time. They argue, they get mad, they get loud, the affect righteous ideological indignation and fools the <tuna's>, the <perfs> and the <IQ 85s> of the world.

Okay, maybe there are one or two true blue do-gooders out of the whole bunch, maybe.

What I have just described is The Swamp.

But the liberals LOVE their Swamp! They *stand* with the Swamp! The defend their Swamp! They don't want Trump to mess with the Swamp!

On the other side of the aisle the conservatives are half as bad as the libs. Not quite as bad, but still bad enough. What that means is that half the conservatives have woken up (taken the Red Pill) and the other half have not, are never-Trumpers, want their old liars back, love McCain and think he's "sensible", love Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, or John Kasich. They love their old phonies!

They still think that those old phonies are "fighting" in congress against Obamacare and against all the liberal stuff. They really think that. They think that Trump is distracting from the real fight by creating chaos. If they could only get rid of Trump, then they could get back to drinking coffee and listening to Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and John McCain talk "sensibly" about what needs to be one.

Idiots!

Thankfully, a sizeable chunk on the right have taken the Red Pill and see the ugly truth. America is more corrupt than the mafia and we are being lied to by the whole government, and we live in a country where a certain class of the plutocracy is above the law - and it's all worse than you think!

That's the red pill vision.

And we have one man with the guts to stand all alone, ganged up on by both sides (historically unprecedented), without a gov't bureaucracy that can be trusted because they are corrupt too, and yet he speaks the truth and doesn't sugarcoat it. He has the integrity to fight for the American people.

Yet the liberals stand with the Swamp.

He starts by conceding the second premise:

<Nisjesram: Second premise of omv morality argument is correct. Objective moral values exist.>

Let me state the argument now.

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.
2. OMV exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Now, it's important to understand that <Nizzle> spent time on the <rogoff> page trying to demonstrate that the argument is logically invalid. He claims to be an expert at logic and mocks this argument for being illogical. Even when I demonstrated the logic form as modus tollens:

1. If not A then not B
2. B
3. Therefore A

He still wasn't sure it was correct. He had to ask <bureaucrat> and <abdel>.

<Nisjesram: <eFocus: So will we now see Trump led away in chains? What say you, liberals>

Let us see :

1) if -A , -B

2) B

3) therefore A

Omv exist , therefore A

Hence proved .

<Big pawn> , <ohiochessfan> <bobsterman 3000> , <diceman> and <Donald Trump> are lunatics - dangerous to themselves and others. They would be led away in chains.

Either that or omv morality argument is most stupid argument I have ever come across.

Is this correct logic , <bureaucrat> , <johnlspouge> , <abdel irada> and other smart posters ? :)>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #277676)

<sugardom>, if you go to that page, you'll see his comment prior to this where he is confidently mocking the argument as not logically correct:

<Nisjesram: <johnlspouge> , <saffuna> , <bureaucrat> and other smart posters here - did you see?

<Big pawn> says that if second premise is correct we must accept first premise even if first premise is incorrect.

Hahaha

<Big pawn> does not understand philosophy or logic.

<Big pawn> is an idiot.>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #277435)

Notice how he doesn't understand the way basic deductive arguments work. He thinks that I am claiming, <<Big pawn> says that if second premise is correct we must accept first premise even if first premise is incorrect.>

He could never produce a statement of mine that confirmed this assertion.

He, not understanding logic, thinks that the second premise is being used as proof of the first!

So fast forward to now. <Nizzle> mocked the logic, mocked me for using modus tollens, begged <bureaucrat> and <abdel> for help and understanding, and then when he observed my discussions with them about modus tollens, he stopped saying the moral argument was illogical, he stopped mocking my use of logic and he instead tried to refute the premises, which catches us up to where we are this very moment.

Back to his most current refutation. He starts by clearing things up by admitting that he agrees the second premise is true. This means that he must refute the first premise to refute this deductive argument.

<Sugardom>, now I will take a close look at <Nizzle's> most recent attempt at refuting the moral argument. I've gone through his prior attempts above and now we are ready to see his current position.

His first statement is to agree with the second premise.

1. <Second premise of omv morality argument is correct. Objective moral values exist.>

His post is long, but the first half of it explains why he agrees with premise two. <That must be very clear to anyone who lives teachings of Jesus.

Especially - 'be still and know ...'

Being still - if we have emotions , we can not be still . We would be restless.

If we are still, we know the impersonal love - the kind of love Jesus showed. Impersonal here means love for everyone (it is more than that , but this would do for now). Love for everyone means happiness and freedom for everyone. When we are free from emotions , we know our true nature - love and intelligence. We know grace. Grace is always present just like sun rays are always present always available.

So second premise is correct. >

Okay, so far no refutation of the moral argument. He needs to refute the first premise and explain why we should think it is false.

His next sentence asserts that the first premise is wrong:

<First premise is wrong. >

What are his reasons?

<Just because we experience objective moral values, we can not draw any conclusion about nature of that which created universe - uncaused cause.

First premise is wrong. >

Here he is again explaining that just because premise two is correct, we can't use that to justify premise one, but, of course, that is not being done!

And this is his entire argument as to why we should think that the first premise is false.

We all know that the argument for thinking the first premise is true is that there needs to be some transcendental foundation of moral values for them to exist objectively, that is, apart from human thought. God, being a transcendental being, is that foundation and makes it possible for moral values to exist, be as they are apart from human thought, and as such exist objectively, apart from man altogether.

This is why Nietzsche, the famous atheist philosopher of the late 1800s, thought that nihilism is true. When Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, he saw that all values would cease to exist including moral values. This is what the "Madman" proclaimed.

Atheists and theists alike agree that the first premise is true, so, you don't have to believe in God to believe the first premise.

Michael Ruse, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha..., a noted atheist philosopher also realized that without God, objective morality is just an illusion.

Ruse: <God is dead, so why should I be good? The answer is that there are no grounds whatsoever for being good. There is no celestial headmaster who is going to give you six (or six billion, billion, billion) of the best if you are bad. Morality is flimflam.>

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...

He goes on to affirm the first premise:

<Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers.>

Michael Ruse, the renown atheist philosopher, knows that without God to provide a transcendental foundation, morality cannot exist objective and, as such, is merely an idea or an emotion produced by the human brain - nothing more.

<Michael Ruse: So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective.>

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...

<sugardom>, I will conclude now, as I've shown that <Nizzle> isn't even on the same playing field with me on this argument. He

1. Thought the argument was illogical
2. Thought that the second premise was being used to justify the first and simply said, unnecessarily, "you can't do that" 3. Did not give an argument as to why the first premise should be thought to be false.

In contrast, I have explained why the first premise is true, and I have also referred to atheist philosophers (showing that my conclusion does not rest on confirmation bias) Nietzsche and Ruse who also agree with the first premise.

<In a Facebook post published Friday, Craig “Sawman” Sawyer, a Marine veteran, former Navy SEAL, sniper, combat instructor and the owner of Tactical Insider, warned of a “gruesome massacre” if President Trump is removed from office.

“I’m hearing serious rumblings of a hostile, illegal coup against our democratically elected President by seditious, deep-state subversives funded by Soros & other globalists. Very disturbing,” he wrote, adding:

Patriots, this would be nothing less than an act of war against the American people. It would be the removal of our boldest defender & last possibility of maintaining our protective Constitution. Under the boot of globalists, life as we know it, would immediately decline to the model that suits the globalist interest – Marxist/Socialist/Communist. They get complete control, you get zero. Freedom, Gone! Liberty, Gone! This agenda is evil and simply cannot be allowed, at ANY cost.

Like ALL military, law enforcement and government officials, I took an oath to defend our Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. By abandoning the rule of law and conducting a coup against the President & policies WE THE PEOPLE elected, they have made themselves enemies of the United States.

After observing that all patriots, regardless of position, have a duty to protect the Constitution, Sawyer minced no words detailing what he believes would happen to those involved in Trump’s removal and he explained why:

Anti-American subversives involved in ANY WAY in an unconstitutional coup against our President will be run down and executed immediately by the world’s most supreme warriors. There will be nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide, no mercy, no sense of humor. Harsh examples will be made. My prediction is it will be a gruesome massacre. Why? Because one side in this conflict has 8 Trillion bullets & the other side doesn’t know which bathroom to use.

And, he added, it won’t take very long: “It will likely only take a few hours. Lessons will be learned. History will take note. Order restored.”>

http://conservativefiringline.com/f...

<“Patriots, We The American People stand united as one, against ALL enemies,” he said. “We are peace-loving people who abide by the rule of law. Prepare yourselves in case this ridiculous insanity actually gets played out and the rule of law goes out the window under their gross miscarriage of our legal process. Shaking my head…”

As we reported Friday, actor James Woods warned that a civil war would break out if Democrats like Maxine Waters — who has made it clear she is willing to sacrifice national security to hurt Trump — succeed in removing Donald Trump from office.

Sadly, Democrats aren’t the only ones involved in what many now see as a coup d’etat against Trump. Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are doing their level best to sabotage Trump.

It should be clear that any attempt to remove Trump from office would result in unrest the likes of which we have not seen in years.>

https://youtu.be/A8O0KMQXPr8?t=30

This is a great interview of Stanley Rosen on CSPAN 2 Book TV, and the interviewer is Brian Lamb. He does a good job asking questions in my opinion.

The interview is almost an hour long and then it's followed by the book club meeting about Neitzsche. In all, this video is two and a half hours or so.

There is a reason that Nietzsche is so famous. He was a genius, but unless you understand the context in which he appeared, relative to his own time and also in respect to the linear development of philosophical ideas, and unless you actually touch upon the many areas of life that he wrote about (35 volumes of work he produced), you can't really appreciate his genius. You may just think, oh yeah, he's a genius, just ask anybody, but that's not good enough. That does not satisfy.

Nietzsche was an unbelievable good and powerful writer. He wrote in very provocative language and was a first rate psychoanalyst too. He influenced Freud and Jung. He actually influenced everything, including politics in the early 1900s when his work was finally widely received.

Nietzsche was also most definitely a revolutionary prophet, and was extraordinarily prescient concerning the path that communism took (remember, he died in 1900 and was stark raving mad since 1889) and also the social revolution that we are now living, which developed slowly over the last 100 or 140 years.

People don't know that about Nietzsche. All they know is that modern day hipster atheists walk around with Thus Spoke Zarathustra under their arm, with tofu stuck in their beards, pretending to be intellectuals.

In my view, Nietzsche is one of the most interesting and profound philosophers of all time. I think his work should be read in chronological order. Or, if you can find videos and lectures about his work and watch them in chronological order, that would be best.

1) first, that transcendental foundation does not have to have being.

Sun exists independent of humans and it does not have being.

2) that transcendental foundation is uncaused cause and uncaused cause has being. <Big pawn> is wrong in saying that <uncaused cause> does not have being.

3) as both <johnlspouge> and I have repeatedly said - <big pawn> has no reason or argument to assert that <uncaused cause> is god.

.

Omv argument thoroughly refuted.

You speak of these things as if they are real? I believe liberalism is about liars/frauds. Things like:

<increasingly ridiculous>

<rioted anyway>

<sad irony>

<none of those outcomes were related to race>

<first big fat mistake>

happen because these people are dishonest.

A "Great Society" that turns into black murder capitals, black incarceration capitals, black illegitimacy capitals, of the United States, is difficult to explain if you believe in competent "leaders"
and "civil rights advocates."

It's easy to explain if you believe them to be liars/frauds, who want to create victims for government empowerment, personal wealth, and election day votes.

As if I needed anymore evidence, vs. lies, horrific results/outcomes.

I found out last week that Maxine Waters lives in a $4.5 million dollar mansion, and pays a family member $600k a year
out of campaign contributions.

Yes, a career of stomping the minority
has been very lucrative for Maxine!

Get ready for another BLM case, this time in Wilson City, Missouri where an unarmed Black Good Samaritan allegedly helped change a flat tire and got killed for it. Oh wait:

http://www.crimeonline.com/2017/08/...

Maxine Waters hates Dr. Ben Carson:

1) first, that transcendental foundation does not have to have being.>

Now <Nizzle> returns, not to question the validity of the logic like so many times before, because he's finally learned that lesson, realizes he was wrong and has retreated from that line of attack.

No, instead he is trying a new set of refutations. Let's take them one at a time.

<1) first, that transcendental foundation does not have to have being.>

This is his refutation? He makes an assertion and gives no reasons or evidence as to why we should think it is true. A bald assertion is not an argument, so this (1 of 3) is not an argument. Furthermore, and this really kills it, even if he were to show that this is true, it wouldn't refute the first premise! Let's say it's true (he still has to show it though - not getting a free pass), it wouldn't mean that God is *not* the transcendental foundation of moral values!

Now let's look at #2.

<2) that transcendental foundation is uncaused cause and uncaused cause has being. <Big pawn> is wrong in saying that <uncaused cause> does not have being.>

This has nothing to do with the first premise in any way. He is taking issue with what I said about an <uncaused cause>, but I never said that an uncaused cause does not have being. Either way, it is irrelevant to the first premise. The first premise states that if God does not exist then OMV do not exist, and this #2 point from <Nizzle> is not about that. It's about the history of <big pawn's> posts regarding an uncaused cause not having being.

Let's look at his final point.

<3) as both <johnlspouge> and I have repeatedly said - <big pawn> has no reason or argument to assert that <uncaused cause> is god.>

This doesn't directly address the first premise, but instead seeks to argue the semantics of the word God. The first premise is not about the semantics of the word God, it is about the foundation of moral values; the ontology of moral values.

So none of <Nizzle's> three statements are arguments for the first premise being FALSE.

He has an assertion (#1) and that is not an argument. He has an irrelevant point about <big pawn> saying that an uncaused cause has no being, which is inaccurate because I never said that - and it's nothing to do with the first premise. And his final statement is off topic on semantics.

If your following posts contain merely bald assertions then they will be deleted. If your following posts do not actually address the premise itself then they will be deleted. Even if your posts do address the first premise, but don't actually argue why we shouldn't think it's true, they will be deleted.

<What he NEEDS to do is show that moral values can exist apart from the human mind, apart from humanity, and that its existence is grounded in something that is not God. He hasn't done that - he hasn't attempted to do that.>

1) so , <big pawn> claims : either show that existence of moral values is grounded in something that is not god or accept that God exists.

No , we don't have to show that existence of moral values is grounded in something that is not god to assert that first premise is flawed.

<Big pawn> has to show that existence of moral values can not be grounded in anything other than god.

<Big pawn> has not done that.

<He has not even attempted to do that despite <johnlspouge> telling him repeatedly that he is required to do that >

2) <big pawn> asking me to do something which is not required to do to refute omv argument.

It is like saying - either you give a right solution to the problem or accept my incorrect solution to the problem as correct solution.

3) the correct answer to the question viz . What is the source/ground of objective moral values, by the way , has been given by many people over the ages - including Jesus.

That answer is not required in this conversation . This conversation is simply refuting omv argument.

4) in effect <big pawn> is asking me to teach him teachings of Jesus.

For free.

I can give him that lesson after this conversation is over.

5) <big pawn> has direct experience of objective moral values like many, many other people.

However, he does not have direct experience of source of objective moral values because he does not understand teachings of Jesus.

People who understand teachings of Jesus at the level of experience have had this direct experience and account of this direct experience have been given by many people over the ages.

<Big pawn> is completely ignorant of all this.

I may find time to help him once this conversation is over.

---------

Omv argument thoroughly refuted.

<1) so , <big pawn> claims : either show that existence of moral values is grounded in something that is not god or accept that God exists.

No , we don't have to show that existence of moral values is grounded in something that is not god to assert that first premise is flawed.>

Yes you do need to do that. You need to make the case that God is not necessary as a ground for moral values to exist objectively. You need to offer an argument, an alternative foundation, or ground which transcends humanity (otherwise it's not existing objectively i.e. apart from humanity) and until you do that, you are doing nothing more than asserting "The First Premise is False!" and that does not rise to the level of argument, and therefore does not rise to the level of a refutation.

I've made many points in my prior posts as to why the first premise is correct, and you don't grapple with any of those specific points, trying instead to wash over all of it with generalities. This will not do, and you leave my points intact.

You've got work to do if you want to even begin to start making your case.

I did that. God is a necessary, maximally great being, who is uncaused and is the locus of moral values. God is first, and if he is first and goodness is a part of his nature, then moral values are grounded in his nature and not in something else.

It is entirely incoherent to just *assert* that moral values "just exist" somewhere, somehow, apart from human thought. That doesn't even mean anything. It has no meaning to say that they "just exist".

God came first. God's nature is good. God's nature is the locus of moral values. God exists apart from man. Therefore God is the only possible explanation for the ontology of moral values.

*IF* you want us to believe otherwise, *THEN* you need to give an argument and an alternative ontological explanation for moral values!