http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/2/129585/ShowThread.aspx

The above statement on not making value judgments has me baffled because it seems "in that very statement a value judgment is being made". That value judgment "being that there are no value judgments".

http://www.paradoxes.co.uk/
Proof that there exists a unicorn
I wish to prove to you that there exists a unicorn. To do this it obviously suffices to prove the (possibly) stronger statement that there exists an existing unicorn. (By an existing unicorn I of course mean one that exists.) Surely if there exists an existing unicorn, then there must exist a unicorn. So all I have to do is prove that an existing unicorn exists. Well, there are exactly two possibilities:
(1) An existing unicorn exists.
(2) An existing unicorn does not exist.
Possibility (2) is clearly contradictory: How could an existing unicorn not exist? Just as it is true that a blue unicorn is necessarily blue, an existing unicorn must necessarily be existing.

Is this the same thing?

I'm not sure about that. But it's certainly not very compelling logic that he's employing. To continue the unicorn example: If I say that there are no unicorns, am I making a value judgment? Of course not. It's just a proposition which has truth-value. Either it's a fact or it's not.

This guy, dittotl, has quoted some statements by Vichy, and none of them contain any prescriptive language, or subjective evaluation. She makes some statements which are either true or false. And dittotl, in the manner of Stefan, tries to "implode" her argument by claiming that it's self-refuting, which it isn't.

Its a Zeno's paradox. You can never say a positive statement about something that doesn't exist.
If morality doesn't exist and you say morality is subjectivie you have implicitly said morality exists. Yet you have said it exists in your mind which is imaginary and therefore not objectective.

surely I am presuposing that a unicorn exists. Thus the logic is rediculus.
Unless I presuppose the unicorn the whole logic implodes.

I don't quite follow you, Phlog. It sounds like we're agreeing, though. My point was that dittotl's objection depends on Vichy making a value judgment, which is to say a subjective statement. Since she didn't do that (not even remotely), his post was pointless.