I started following this one yesterday, too. Favorite line so far: "Point of clarification, people: OP is arguing against some of the fallacious proofs for UPB, but not against the metamoral system itself, which (I think) he believes true, and so do I."

At least I can give RODF props for admitting the logic of UPB is a mess. I wish I could understand how they can accept on faith a book that claims to be about logic. Those crazy kids.

Reminder to everyone that Molyneux kicked bake for not asking him questions in a respectful and deferential manner. This guy isn't exactly being polite.

Here's a nullrefer link to the thread for those who want to play it safe: UPB: critique up to page 46, bad (no) foundations.