FSK says that Truth is Not Relative.
An important pro-State troll debating point is “Truth is Relative”. They say there is no absolute standard of truth.
In math, computer science, physics, engineering and chemistry, most people agree that absolute truths exist, but on matters of politics or economics, people often disagree and claim that objective truths don’t exist.
One commenter, anarcho-mercantilist says, referring to something called “E-Prime”,
Unless I interpret your statement as “We all believe that theft contradicts our moral philosophy in all circumstances,” your statement that “Stealing is wrong” is subjective.
I thought it was funny, that his conclusion violates the principles of E-Prime, which sounds like another futile exercise in semantic confusion. Note that FSK did not suggest that “Stealing is wrong” is axiomatic.
Is it possible to deduce “Stealing is wrong” based on E-Prime valid premises? I’m fairly certain it can be done. Most people think that stealing is OK if the government does it, or if 50%+1 of a population vote against 50%-1 of the population. These people don’t know E-Prime from a hole in the wall. Since I presume that nobody really gives a shit about that sort of pedagogy, I’ll table it for further discussion.
Since an indisputable goal of debating is to establish what is (and what is not) true, anyone disputing the existence of universal truths is committing a performative contradiction, since participating in the dispute belies the existence of universal truths, since the contrary position “There are no universal truths” is, of itself, a binary universal statement; it cannot be a true statement, since its truth is self-invalidating.