[Leonard D Neubache]

I think I'm going to initiate a count-down to the point where the left pushes the idea that all whites that have slept with non-whites will be considered to be rapists because "our privilege caused them to feel an unwarranted sense of submission".

It's the perfect excuse for white left-wing female closet racists to only date in-race and hoard the white male dating pool to themselves since we all know how much their love of diversity extends to asian women.

Hell. If white privilege is a real thing, and if it holds true that a drunk woman can't lawfully consent to the unwritten contract of sex, then how can a POC legitimately be held to the unwritten contract of sex if they were by definition "under duress" of the power of white privilege?

I'm thinking we'll see this in two years or less.

Shame I missed my calling. With this material I could have gotten a shitty degree in white guilt, put on a dress, done a speaking circuit for a half a million bucks a year and banged an endless line of granola chicks.

Fucking morals ruin everything.

[TheMost]

(07-11-2017 09:18 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I think I'm going to initiate a count-down to the point where the left pushes the idea that all whites that have slept with non-whites will be considered to be rapists because "our privilege caused them to feel an unwarranted sense of submission".

It's the perfect excuse for white left-wing female closet racists to only date in-race and hoard the white male dating pool to themselves since we all know how much their love of diversity extends to asian women.

Hell. If white privilege is a real thing, and if it holds true that a drunk woman can't lawfully consent to the unwritten contract of sex, then how can a POC legitimately be held to the unwritten contract of sex if they were by definition "under duress" of the power of white privilege?

I'm thinking we'll see this in two years or less.

I think you've come up with an excellent action plan there. The first man to pull this off will be Black Knight of the year.

I salute your genius, Sir.

[Sonoma]

I think Jefferson did it and I also don't really care or think of it in any way wrong. A good looking, highly esteemed man had sex with a person of a reasonable age for the time period. Certainly it's possible that she was unwilling, and this encounter was in fact rape.

Based on Jefferson's looks, money, and prestige, I am going to bet good money that this was a very consensual activity. As well, it's unlikely that he would have been able to continuously rape her throughout her life without there being some sort of pushback

[Stanfield]

If the United States hadnt had the revotion, what would the difference today be? Wouldnt America just be like Australia or Canada?

[therealpoder]

It is no contradiction to say that Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest men to have ever live but he raped he likely raped his slave girl. Obviously, if he didn’t do it that should be pointed out. Great individuals have their fault and it is okay to condemn those faults. Obviously when SJWs point out flaws of the founding fathers they do it to undermine national pride; they must be resisted.

(07-10-2017 04:34 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Who am I to judge?

Anyone can judge. Absolute moral exist and when individuals violate those morals, they should be condemned.

(07-11-2017 06:33 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 05:01 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Who cares - back then the masters of the households fucked their maids, all their legal servants, every girl opening their legs and likely a good deal of the servants. Even if he did that, then who cares?

Yes. I agree. If something is common enough, it's basically OK. Like rape accusation.

Women making false accusations of rape is now commonplace. Who cares? No big deal.

It's normal.

Same goes for school teachers having sex with their under-aged students, male or female. It happens all the time. No big deal.

Or gay faggot sex. Pretty normal now. Who cares?

So if someone made a false accusation of rape against you, or if you had a 10 year old daughter had a male teacher and her teacher banged her, it is okay because it happens all the time?

Just because an immoral act is common does not mean that it is no longer immoral. This moral relativism that is displayed here is no different than not having any morals at all. It makes it impossible to condemn any act as wrong.

[weambulance]

Quote:

Anyone can judge. Absolute moral exist and when individuals violate those morals, they should be condemned.

Where do I find this book of absolute morals, exactly, and who wrote it?

[therealpoder]

No book is required. It's determined by intuition. The same way that it cannot be "proven" that 2 + 2 = 4, it cannot be "proven" that murder or rape is wrong. Stated differently, "you know it when you see it". And if people "feel" that murder and rape aren't wrong, then it doesn't mean that those activities aren't wrong, it means those individuals are sociopaths and need help.

The moral relativist assume that because people disagree about the truth that there is no truth at all. In other words, the premise doesn't follow from the conclusion. Absolute moral can exist without people necessarily agreeing on what they are.

Moreover, the little disagreement that does exist has more to do about the facts and applications of the moral principle and not disagreement about the moral principle itself. For example, take abortion. Both sides agree that innocent persons should not be killed. The issue is "who is an innocent person?" Almost all moral disputes comes down to a question of who the moral rule applies to and a differences of facts rather than the moral rule itself.

The strange irony of moral relativism is that to condemn moral absolutism they are implying that they can make a judgement and that one set of ideas (moral relativism) are superior to another's (moral absolutism). They have to abandon moral relativism in order to defend it. Hence, moral relativism is self refuting. After all "who are you to judge?" that my opinion of "moral relativism being false" is wrong.

In order to defend Thomas Jefferson from SJW's critiques, some individuals here embraced moral relativism. This is a mistake. Moral relativism is conceding the world view of SJWs as valid and would be an even greater concession to them than criticizing Thomas Jefferson. Most of the degeneracy of the past 50 years comes from the idea that all actions are equally valid, no one can criticize another and anything goes. If Thomas Jefferson has to be criticized in order to avoid accepting relativism then so be it.

[weambulance]

"Determined by intuition" - whose?

What's murder?

What's rape?

It's not moral relativism to say that context matters, no matter how much word salad you throw.

[Suits]

(07-16-2017 10:53 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

"Determined by intuition" - whose?

What's murder?

What's rape?

It's not moral relativism to say that context matters, no matter how much word salad you throw.

If you have to resort to posts like these to avoid painting yourself into a corner, it's safe to say that your beliefs may have some logical weaknesses.

[weambulance]

Answer the questions if you think moral absolutes are so easy to define. Put up or shut up, pal, because I'm sick of the sniping.


Edit - clarity

[Suits]

(07-16-2017 11:14 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Answer the questions if you think moral absolutes are so easy to define. Put up or shut up, pal, because I'm sick of the sniping.

The very fact that you are asking those questions shows that you either did not bother to read or did not understand therealpoder's insightful post, as he has already noted and responded to this concern.

[weambulance]

Can't do it, huh? Gotta weasel around? I'm shocked.

I'll say directly that moral absolutism is fucking bullshit. I speak from experience. And that is the point of the questions, to show exactly how an absolutist approach fails in real world terms. But of course, they need to be answered first. If moral absolutes are so obvious, it should be very easy to do.

You're out of your depth but since you butted in, answer the questions. Or admit you can't and let someone else take up the argument.

[therealpoder]

"Determined by intuition" - whose?"

The intuition of the human race. It's unclear what point you are trying to make here.

"What's murder? What's rape?"

You know what murder and rape is. Again, it's unclear what point you are trying to make here.

"It's not moral relativism to say that context matters..."

This is the very definition of relativism.

"I'll say directly that moral absolutism is fucking bullshit."

But who are you to judge? In order to say "relativism is fucking bullshit" you have to abandon you prior your previous commitment to non judgment.

So which is it? If it's not for you to judge then you cannot say that moral relativism is "fucking bullshit" and you have no basis to oppose my argument that "moral relativism is nonsense". After all, it's not for you to judge. If you still state that moral relativism is "fucking bullshit" then you are stating that you can make a judgement based on absolute truth which refutes the idea of moral relativism. Either way moral relativism is false.

"If moral absolutes are so obvious, it should be very easy to do."

Your argument is unsound. Correct me if I'm wrong but your argument is "because moral absolutes aren't obvious, they don't exist therefore moral absolutism is false."

I disagree with your premise. Some moral absolutes can be known even if they aren't obvious. But I would assert that "murder and rape are wrong" are obvious. Even if something is not obvious, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true. And since your premises are false, your conclusion is false.

[weambulance]

So you can't answer my questions either?

There is no intuition of the human race because we're not a bunch of clones. Morals do not come baked into our DNA in quite such a literal fashion. That's completely obvious to anyone who has seen the differences between two different cultures.

I never claimed I would never judge any situation. You erected that strawman. I made a throwaway comment that was really based on the fact that I didn't have the full facts of the situation, and I'm not interested in projecting modern morality on the past. It is ridiculous that three people now have tried to make hay out of that nothing statement without even asking for clarification or trying to understand the questionable situation's context.

And since I made that statement, I alone actually laid out the concrete facts as history tells them. You see, I think it's important to know where a claim comes from instead of just trusting that it is true. Perhaps you do not agree with that either.

You're playing the lawyer instead of dealing in concrete terms, which does not engender confidence. Why can't you answer simple questions? Why do you try to reframe everything instead of just engaging in open debate?

What is murder? Define it for me.

[weambulance]

Here's a really specific question:

I've killed people. Is that wrong?

[h3ltrsk3ltr]

The need to condemn rape quickly and with histrionic fervor probably originated with college kiddies being hyper-aware of the injustice of the strong beating down someone who's weak. Ironically, the pervasiveness of rape in game of thrones has done little to stint the popularity of that show so apparently the moral absolutism that condemns rape doesn't have a problem with the popular show that glorifies it. Of course, we here hold ourselves to higher morals I think but there it is.

I was reading something by Mark Twain or Rudyard Kipling that said something like "it's characteristic of children to be acutely aware of injustice". This is why you see kids crying when they get angry about something being really unfair. It's an emotion appropriate in a child and maybe even a woman but never a man (the absolute standard of manliness is available across many books).

I think Nassim Taleb would say there's moralism that's either MORE or LESS absolute in different contexts (it's supposed to be a little funny). I think the phrase "it was a different time" throws some much needed common sense into the discussion of the morality of rape over the 200 years between the Jefferson and the slave girl incident and now.

Back to the game of thrones example: I'm okay with rape happening in a fictitious tv show depicting barbarians.

I'm less okay with Jefferson raping a 14 year old 200 years ago but able to get past it.

I'm VERY NOT OKAY with the raping that goes on by "Syrian" "Refugees" and Pope-sanctioned pedophiles and woe to the cocksucking cunt who thinks they'll get away with it (I'm compelled to say here I'm saying this out of anger about what's happening and not a desire to virtue-signal).

Here's a related video by Sargon of Akkad that discusses cult-think and touches on some problems with absolute absolutism: https://youtu.be/RGMo-pwNJrM

Edit: Actually it might have been C.S. Lewis. I think it was in the Magician's Nephew where the uncle threatens the kid's sick mom if he exposes the uncle's plot.

[weambulance]

To add information to the thread:

As far as I can tell, there was no such thing as age of consent around the turn of the 18th century in most of the western world. There were age of marriage laws in some places but they set fairly young limits, like 11-12 for girls and 13-14 for boys as I recall.

By the 1880s there were age of consent laws in place in the US, and depending on the state they ranged from 10-12 years old, with the exception of Delaware which was seven. Also, AOC laws were apparently not considered absolute; if a younger person showed reciprocal interest, that was considered somewhat mitigating.

It wasn't until the early 1900s that AOC laws in the US got up to 16+.

Thus, the age of the girl alone--even granting the wildly unsupported claim that Jefferson was banging a 14 year old girl--is completely irrelevant in context.

I did not spend that much time researching the matter so if someone can point me to laws in the 1790-1800 timeframe that established AOC as 15+ in Virginia or France, I'd be happy to see a source.


Edit - typo, clarity

[therealpoder]

"So you can't answer my questions either?"

You haven't posed a question I haven't answered. Just because you don't like my response or disagree with it does not mean the question wasn't answered.

"There is no intuition of the human race because we're not a bunch of clones. There is no intuition of the human race because we're not a bunch of clones. Morals do not come baked into our DNA in quite such a literal fashion."

Again, another judgment. Who are you to say that any of this is true?

"That's completely obvious to anyone who has seen the differences between two different cultures."

Asked and answered. Almost all moral conflicts come down to differences in fact and who the morals apply to, not differences in moral principles themselves. I'm still waiting for a refutation.

"I never claimed I would never judge any situation. You erected that strawman. I made a throwaway comment that was really based on the fact that I didn't have the full facts of the situation, and I'm not interested in projecting modern morality on the past. It is ridiculous that three people now have tried to make hay out of that nothing statement without even asking for clarification or trying to understand the questionable situation's context."

You claiming I'm making a straw man but I did not misrepresent your position. No one is disputing that you shouldn't make judgments without the full facts of the situation. The part where I quoted you, I stated "Anyone can judge. Absolute moral exist and when individuals violate those morals, they should be condemned". If you feel that you can judge actions as right or wrong, you aren't a moral relativist. If you agree that "absolute moral exist and when individuals violate those morals, they should be condemned" You aren't a moral relativist. Neither of those statements have anything to do with reserving judgment until all facts are determined. If that is all you asserted, I wouldn't have responded to you.

"And since I made that statement, I alone actually laid out the concrete facts as history tells them. You see, I think it's important to know where a claim comes from instead of just trusting that it is true. Perhaps you do not agree with that either."

This is irrelevant to the argument I'm making.

"You're playing the lawyer instead of dealing in concrete terms, which does not engender confidence. Why can't you answer simple questions? Why do you try to reframe everything instead of just engaging in open debate?"

Again, you haven't asked a question I haven't responded to.

"What is murder? Define it for me."

"Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)."


"Here's a really specific question: I've killed people. Is that wrong?"

Killing is an act. Murder describes an unjustified killing. It's impossible to determine whether killing is unjustified and therefore murder and justified such as in defensive war without knowing more information. Also, what counts as justified differs as well. Again, it's not clear how this is relevant.

My turn to ask questions. Again, if you aren't a moral relativist, you can ignore them:

1. How does moral relativism differ from not having morals at all?

2. How does disagreeing on what moral principles are mean that absolute morals don't exist?

3. Is morality is relative, how can one state that the current day United States is morally superior or inferior to Nazi Germany?

4. If moral relativism is true, how can there be any moral progress at all as opposed to societies merely having different morals?

5. If relativism true, explain why trying to achieve justice and fairness aren't pointless activities? In fact, what would be "justice" and "fairness"?

[h3ltrsk3ltr]

I asked my grandmother what she thought about moral relativism.

Her response:

"Oh! Well personally, I think my relatives should be moral."

[weambulance]

Quote:

"So you can't answer my questions either?"

You haven't posed a question I haven't answered. Just because you don't like my response or disagree with it does not mean the question wasn't answered.

Are you high? I asked explicit questions and you talked around them. You said "you know what murder and rape are" when I asked you to define them. A three year old knows that's not an answer. It's simply avoiding answering explicitly for fear of being pinned down.

Quote:

"There is no intuition of the human race because we're not a bunch of clones. There is no intuition of the human race because we're not a bunch of clones. Morals do not come baked into our DNA in quite such a literal fashion."

Again, another judgment. Who are you to say that any of this is true?

What is there to even say to this? Who am I? I'm a human being who has experienced purest civilization and purest barbarism, and in both environments the situations were considered normal and right. If morality is baked in, why is there so much disagreement?

---------------------------------------------------

Now I'm going to focus on a key problem you just made for yourself:

Quote:

"It's not moral relativism to say that context matters..."

This is the very definition of relativism.

You're right. That is the literal definition. I admit I was wrong in my assertion.

Quote:

You claiming I'm making a straw man but I did not misrepresent your position. No one is disputing that you shouldn't make judgments without the full facts of the situation.

You claimed in the previous quote that saying "context matters" is moral relativism. You were right. Then you claimed that context matters within your framework of (undefined) absolute morality. Which is it?

You don't even understand your own arguments well enough to stay consistent.

You quoted a law as an answer to an ethical question involving absolute morality. Yet, what's murder in one state is manslaughter in another, and is self defense in another. Which is right? There must be an answer if there is some true absolute morality.

Hell, you can't even explicitly define premeditation with any precision if you're relying on the law. To one DA, premeditation means walking up to someone and shooting them in cold blood. To another, it means carrying a gun and using it in self defense, because deciding to carry a gun points to premeditation. Which is right? There must be an answer if there is some true absolute morality.

Quote:

"Here's a really specific question: I've killed people. Is that wrong?"

Killing is an act. Murder describes an unjustified killing. It's impossible to determine whether killing is unjustified and therefore murder and justified such as in defensive war without knowing more information. Also, what counts as justified differs as well. Again, it's not clear how this is relevant.

Huh. You sound a lot like a moral relativist.

Maybe I'm arguing at too low a level here. Do you understand what the word absolute means? Because it seems like you don't, the way you're waffling all over the place when I ask you for concrete definitions of this absolute morality you speak of.

How does the internet define absolute morality?

Quote:

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source.

Do you have some other definition?

Now for your questions:

Quote:

1. How does moral relativism differ from not having morals at all?

2. How does disagreeing on what moral principles are mean that absolute morals don't exist?

3. Is morality is relative, how can one state that the current day United States is morally superior or inferior to Nazi Germany?

4. If moral relativism is true, how can there be any moral progress at all as opposed to societies merely having different morals?

5. If relativism true, explain why trying to achieve justice and fairness aren't pointless activities? In fact, what would be "justice" and "fairness"?

1. A moral relativist has morals by definition. Moral relativism is not amoralism.

2. It doesn't. However, saying "you can't prove this thing does not exist" is not evidence that the thing does exist. I can't prove that a dragon and a coterie of big-haired trolls don't live in a cave on Pluto. So?

3. You're trying to frame everything in absolute terms. I don't care about the absolute argument in comparing my society to another. If another society goes against what I believe are correct morals, I'm going to consider them less moral... by my standards. They no doubt feel the same about me. And I can live with that.

4. You're assuming a false premise.

5. Fairness and justice exist within a social framework, not the greater universe. Even the Bible does not posit absolute morality. Are you saying if there's no absolute moral standard, we might as well devolve into anarchy?

-------

Clearly, by the strict definition I am a moral relativist. I'll add it to my CV with all the rest of my collected labels.

However, after reading what you've written so far, I can only conclude that you don't actually know what moral relativism and absolutism are. You seem to think moral relativists--realists, in other words--are amoral. That's a bunch of bunk.

[therealpoder]

"Are you high? I asked explicit questions and you talked around them. You said "you know what murder and rape are" when I asked you to define them. A three year old knows that's not an answer. It's simply avoiding answering explicitly for fear of being pinned down."

No, I'm not high. When I use a word, I'm going by the common dictionary definition of the word. It's not talking around your question by assuming that when discussing a word to assume that the common, dictionary definition of the word is being used. Which is why I said "you know what murder and rape are". Do I need to explain every single commonly used term that I use, or can we assume that when I use a word, that I am using the commonly definition? Moreover, I provided the definition of "murder" later on. So perhaps I should ask, are you high?

"What is there to even say to this? Who am I? I'm a human being who has experienced purest civilization and purest barbarism, and in both environments the situations were considered normal and right. If morality is baked in, why is there so much disagreement?"

Asked and answered. For the third time, the difference involves who moral principles should apply to and differences of fact. Funny how you accuse me of talking around the issue when you continue to talk around this response.

"You claimed in the previous quote that saying "context matters" is moral relativism. You were right. Then you claimed that context matters within your framework of (undefined) absolute morality. Which is it?"

In order to determine the morality of the act, the action and mental state has to be taken into account. Or to use legalese, the actus reus and mens reus. While crashing a car into a group of innocent people is a "bad" event, there is a moral difference between if the act was caused due to the person falling asleep behind the wheel and someone wanting to kill. The former is killing and while unfortunate, it is not murder. The latter is murder since there was an intention to kill. Saying context matter in order to determine whether an act is killing or murder is not moral relativism.

"You don't even understand your own arguments well enough to stay consistent."

I've yet to see you rebut any of my arguments.

"You quoted a law as an answer to an ethical question involving absolute morality. Yet, what's murder in one state is manslaughter in another, and is self defense in another. Which is right? There must be an answer if there is some true absolute morality.

Hell, you can't even explicitly define premeditation with any precision if you're relying on the law. To one DA, premeditation means walking up to someone and shooting them in cold blood. To another, it means carrying a gun and using it in self defense, because deciding to carry a gun points to premeditation. Which is right? There must be an answer if there is some true absolute morality"

Again, asked and answered. You seem to believe that because people cannot agree on what murder is, that the absolute rule that murder is bad doesn't exist. You've provided no proof of this.

"Maybe I'm arguing at too low a level here."

Doubtful. You haven't even grasped the basic notion that by stating "moral absolutism is wrong" you are renouncing the "who am I the judge?" position you stated earlier in this thread. Again I ask, who are you to judge that my position is wrong? Do you not see by judging my position as wrong you are renouncing your own relativism?

"Do you understand what the word absolute means? Because it seems like you don't, the way you're waffling all over the place when I ask you for concrete definitions of this absolute morality you speak of"

Yes, murder is wrong regardless of context. Rape is wrong, regardless of context. The reason why you don't understand my position is that you are ignoring mental state. Mental state what separate murder from killing and rape from sexual intercourse.

"A moral relativist has morals by definition. Moral relativism is not amoralism."

If there is no absolute morals there's no reason why everyone should just do whatever they want so long as they can get away with it. There is nothing in moral relativism as to why I should value one set of moral over others. Why should I value your morals over that over Mao? How can you say that Osama bin Laden is more moral than Mother Teresa without an objective set of morals? Who are you to judge?

"It doesn't. However, saying "you can't prove this thing does not exist" is not evidence that the thing does exist."

I never said that it was. Moral relativists such as yourself attempt to use differences of fact as proof that a moral absolutism is false. I'm glad you agree that difference of opinion of a moral rule does not mean the moral rule does not exist.

"You're trying to frame everything in absolute terms. I don't care about the absolute argument in comparing my society to another. If another society goes against what I believe are correct morals, I'm going to consider them less moral... by my standards. They no doubt feel the same about me. And I can live with that"

So? Why should I or anyone else care about your standards? If you cannot appeal to absolute moral by what basis can you state that anything Stalin did was wrong? You may say "because I say so" or "because I feel it is" but why should I or anyone else care? You may say "might makes right" but if Stalin took over the west, he would have been right. You say "correct...by my standards" but what standards are those and how did you arrive at those standards as opposed to others?

"You're assuming a false premise."

State my false premise is and if I recognize that it is false. I'll change my position. Simple. Take the issue of slavery for example. If it is not a moral absolute that "slavery is morally wrong" you cannot say that any society has morally improved by abolishing slavery. All you can say is that a society without slavery is merely different but not any better or worse morally.

"Fairness and justice exist within a social framework, not the greater universe."

Indeed. No one can be just or unjust on a desert island by himself.

"Even the Bible does not posit absolute morality."

Absolute morality comes from God. There is no absolute morality without the context of God.

"Are you saying if there's no absolute moral standard, we might as well devolve into anarchy?"

I'm saying if there is no absolute morality, it's impossible to condemn or praise anything as wrong or praise worthy nor is there any reason I shouldn't commit crimes if I believe that I can get away with it.

Why shouldn't I steal? Why shouldn't I rape? Why shouldn't I murder? You may say because the state will stop me but if I can get away with doing these things, why shouldn't I do them?

[weambulance]

You're so far up in the theoretical clouds you can't even see reality, and your logic circuits are clearly broken, so there's no point in continuing the "discussion".

What a complete and utter waste of time.

[therealpoder]

But who are you to judge?

[weambulance]

Quote:

In order to determine the morality of the act, the action and mental state has to be taken into account. Or to use legalese, the actus reus and mens reus. While crashing a car into a group of innocent people is a "bad" event, there is a moral difference between if the act was caused due to the person falling asleep behind the wheel and someone wanting to kill. The former is killing and while unfortunate, it is not murder. The latter is murder since there was an intention to kill. Saying context matter in order to determine whether an act is killing or murder is not moral relativism.

Quote:

Yes, murder is wrong regardless of context. Rape is wrong, regardless of context. The reason why you don't understand my position is that you are ignoring mental state. Mental state what separate murder from killing and rape from sexual intercourse.

Wew, look at these gems. You say context doesn't matter, when murder and rape are defined by context. It's like a logic trainwreck up in here, I can't look away!

Quote:

con·text
noun
The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

Killing is an act. Murder is killing in a certain context. I am amazed that I need to explain this to you.

The only person you're going to convince with retarded lawyerese of the sort you spout is another lawyer. No doubt you think you're clever, but you sound insane to a normal person.

You're a high verbal IQ type--giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you're on a mobile device; your formatting leaves much to be desired--with no capacity for understanding and applying logic. Else, you would not leave gaping logic chasms in your arguments that a six year old could pick out just by paying attention to what you say.

Quote:

But who are you to judge?

Someone who understands logic. And I have to say, it's pathetic trying to use your own strawman as a "kill shot".

Maybe you're just a troll. I'd say there's at least a 40% chance that's the case.

[therealpoder]

"You say context doesn't matter, when murder and rape are defined by context."

You are correct on this point and I was wrong. Context does define murder and rape.

"Killing is an act. Murder is killing in a certain context."

See above. I was wrong on this point.

"The only person you're going to convince with retarded lawyerese of the sort you spout is another lawyer. No doubt you think you're clever, but you sound insane to a normal person.

You're a high verbal IQ type--giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you're on a mobile device; your formatting leaves much to be desired--with no capacity for understanding and applying logic. Else, you would not leave gaping logic chasms in your arguments that a six year old could pick out just by paying attention to what you say."

Spare me with the personal attacks. It's lame when leftists do and it's lame when you do it. If you are clearly correct and I'm clearly wrong, then prove it. Show me the "gaping chasms of my logic" and answer the questions I proposed to you in my second to last post and I'll become a moral relativist. Simple to do if you are correct. However, I'm still waiting.

"Someone who understands logic. And I have to say, it's pathetic trying to use your own strawman as a "kill shot"."

It doesn't seem that way. If aren't qualified to judge anything then how can you judge my arguments to be incorrect?

"Maybe you're just a troll. I'd say there's at least a 40% chance that's the case."

I'm not forcing you to respond. If you sincerely believe I'm a troll, you are free to abandon the conversation at anytime. But you agreed with me on one point, that disagreement concerning moral values doesn't mean that they don't exist, and I've agreed with you on one point, that murder and rape are defined by context. If you feel like you are wasting your time, stop responding to me. But I'm going to continue to defend my position until you or someone else proves me wrong.