Oh that is very true. I've had major beefs with the OED when
   used as evidence in debates. A ltiny bit of knowledge of the
   history of the development of the OED and its bias is pretty
   clear. Doesn't invalidate it as support but definitions can be
   wobbly things to try to rest an entire argument on.   Yeah, he
   gets ridiculous. Basically, in short, ANYTHING that says
   "morality is relative to culture" he will have a knee jerk
   reaction to, because in his view, morality is absolute and
   independent on individual culture. Therefore, a culture can be
   absolutely wrong, even if within the culture it is correct.
   That, I believe is his position. Yes, citing the book was
   ridiculous of him, but he tends towards hyperbole. At least it
   helped me get a better idea where he's coming from. *Actually, a
   definition is simply putting an outline around a concept.
   "define". Doesn't matter who does it. It only matter whether it
   is considered an acceptable definition to both parties for
   effective communications.
   I might contend that morality is not real but rather a
   personification of "actions". I believe this leads to cognitive
   errors, arguing about the substance of a "thing" that isn't a
   thing at all but rather a convenient carrier for a set of active
   judgement calls, crystallized into the form of laws and written
   things, but in the end, "morality" being a 'thing' - a person -
   a noun - is a categorical error.

   Now you can shoot me for having said that*smile emoticonI'm
   generally not an anti-realist but I'm always on the hunt for
   tracing the history of concepts across time.*

   That is, something can be quite real, describing something real,
   but going about it the wrong way, akin to how people talk about
   "Love" as if it's a thing. But there is no such thing as
   Love.*From what I understand, moral means good. Aaron believes
   there is an objective good that is distinct from what people say
   is good.
   *So causation?
   Moral Should _may_ lead to Societal Should but
   Social Should _never_ leads to Moral Should.

   Is this an accurate portrayal of your stance?
   You're welcome. I'm all for the unorthodox viewpoints; how else
   can we hope to progress without untraditional viewpoints. I hold
   many unorthodox positions, as well as some orthodox positions.
   It's not always easy figuring out which is which, but it's worth
   the effort.
   Finished reading the review.*
   Fascinating position. Of course without reading the book, I am
   getting biased viewpoint. Nevertheless, it gives me a taste of
   it.
   While I don't necessarily agree to a mind-independent moral
   normative reality... much as I don't believe society is a "real
   thing" but rather a convenient construct... nevertheless, I can
   see it's _pragmatic_ value of use in an 'as if true", at least
   to maintain some sort of firm moral stance in a post religious
   world based upon morality that at least appears to be in some
   form instrinsic, based upon their common usage across human
   history and cultures.

   Interesting stuff.
   It appears that in this viewpoint, it is non-naturalistic yet
   also considered a fact in this way:

   a) There are stars out there. That is one kind of fact.
   b) There is an objective morality distinct from belief and
   society that is intrinsic and can be revealed in a similar way
   that objective facts about the Universe are revealed....
   however...

   A fact of "the stars is out there', is not quite at the same
   level of fact of specific moral facts.

   But not being at the same level as a physical fact does not
   invalidate its "factness" but rather makes it somewhat more
   difficult to pin down. yet, it does not mean it does not exist,
   or is all relative, or culturally dependent.

   I'm not saying I agree with this or disagree with it; I'm just
   trying to comprehend the position and re-explain it as best I
   can.

   I welcome corrections*Aaron J Mobley
   Having done about as much research onAaron J Mobley*position as
   I care to at this time [tonight is likely the only time I will
   investigate it to this length] - I do not believe he holds to a
   moral absolutist position.

   It seems to be a more nuanced position with distinct set of
   criteria that is not a dogmatic position nor is it strictly
   based upon logic alone.*

   I gave some reasons about a page up in the thread but without
   Aaron confirming or denying that I am correct, incorrect, it's
   of limited value.