When discussing a complex philosophical issue, it’s important not to be in an echo chamber. Spirited debate from my (no doubt exclusively brilliant) readers is important to ascertain whether my ideas are correct. If you look at the old discussions on, for example, slatestarcodex shows how interesting the comments can be on blog posts. Very few people tend to comment on most of my posts (though Anon comments on nearly all of them, which I’m grateful for), despite many people reading them.
So don’t hesitate to comment, whether you agree, disagree, or agree only partially. It would be optimific, uniquely universally willable, and not immediately reasonably rejectable.
I did but then you didn't seem to want to engage with my posts. Not exactly worth it to write big responses if you're not going to respond. I'd still like to know what you think the normative implications of moral antirealism are, for instance, as per the previous discussion. If those posts were too long, I'd be happy to write more concise posts. I'm verbose. If it helps, I can employ a self-imposed word limit.
I will! :)