>"For someone who complains about me talking about semantics, you sure do like to complain about semantics a whole lot."

From my side it's not really a question of semantics since semantics concerns the meaning of the words.

>"I can rephrase that easily to fix it. Here is the fixed second premise, ""Should", "moral right," and "moral wrong" are imaginary (premise)" (moral right and moral wrong, in this case, are defined as the usage of right and wrong associated not with accuracy or direction, but the definitions used in moral philosophy)."

You haven't fixed it, you've done this:

1. Star Wars is generally considered by definition (in available dictionaries), by the general populace, and by pop culture experts to be about "aliens", "robots", and "an omnipresent psychic force" (premise)

2. "Aliens", "R2-D2" and "The Force" are imaginary (premise) (R2-D2 and The Force, in this case, are defined as the usage of robots and omnipresent psychic force associated not with minesweepers or parapsychology, but the definitions used in pop culture).

3. Therefore, Star Wars as it is defined and understood (by the general populace) is about imaginary things (conclusion)"

It works in general because it's Star Wars but it doesn't hold up when it's scifi in general and you have advanced technology in the first premise and rayguns and perpetual motion machines in the second premise so you can conclude scifi is about nothing real (implying scifi itself isn't real).

>"Because what you've said about definitions is incoherent and unsupported. I literally had no idea how to respond to it because when you talked about definitions, you didn't make an actual logical argument. I cannot critique an argument that has not been made."

You couldn't grasp the obvious implication of these fifteen words? The definition for the Sun and the stars used to include "They orbit the Earth."

>"Yes, and in this specific conversation we are having an arguments. Arguments have reasons. When I say I have no reason, I mean you have provided no reasons, and thus your argument is logically unsound."

Again, you're making that same dance.

I could say "The Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun hence the Moon orbits the Sun." and you could go "I don't agree and I see no reason to agree with you." or "I have no reason to believe that, if I did it would provide proof in favour of its reality or its factualness or accurateness." without even reading my argument through.

Let me put it this way: I don't care about your agreeing with what orbits what or you believing what orbits what. I don't mind you questioning my logic when I say "X orbits Y." but what you're doing is not understanding (or perhaps pretending to not understand) that definitions come out of books written by us humans for the sake of talking about things, the universe did not write those books for us humans describing its inner workings for us to eventually decipher.

In other words, imagine if Galileo had said "The books say the Sun orbits the Earth so no reason to look in that telescope for myself or look at why the math doesn't add up, smarter people than me would have done better in the past and if they couldn't it will take the smart people of the distant future to solve it."?

>"Stop with this silly "should is a myth" semantics."

It's not semantics. Semantics is about meaning e.g. "What do we mean by the word dog?", not reality/fiction e.g. "Are dogs fictional?" is not a question about semantics. "Should" is a fiction.

>"I'm not talking about that right now, so stop arguing with me about random stuff I haven't even brought up."

It's not random. You're the one bringing those myths up e.g. that I "have to" do X in order to fulfill Y of making a logical argument which is ironic since "imperatives" are not logical. :-)