get my blue face paint, i'm off to pick a fight... (96)

I am always ready to argue about semantics. They matter. As I point out on my profile.

You are entitled to your opinions, naturally.

I am a little puzzled that someone who apparently admires those who "can construct a sensible argument worth reading" should feel that abusive language and personal attacks fall in line with such sensible disputation.

Let me assure you that I am not interested in puffing my own ego. It is already more than strong enough.

And IF perchance your constructive suggestions were aimed at me (surely not?) I am bewildered that you feel I should "shut up". After all, MOST posts on this thread endorse the "relative morality" stance. I am one voice arguing the opposite. Or do you believe that debate is best where only one point of view (which you clearly share) is allowed? How remarkably intolerant, on what is necessarily a tolerant site.

I just happen to believe that these things matter. If you don't believe that a debate which includes arguing whether or not paedophiles have as much right to their predilections as anyone else, and that morality is only subjective, is a debate worth having, I am surprised at your scale of values.

But I am happy to argue it into next week if you prefer

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

^^^^ This is probably a facetious comment.
<---- This person cares. No really, he does.

is it ever?

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Oh deary deary me, this explains a lot. We can't have a moral discussion with you because you won't acknowledge that we have any morals. We don't believe in absolutes, because we aren't theists, and you don't believe morality can exist without absolutes. So the result is that we're going to go round and round until what? Either we change our minds and start believing, or you stop believing, or one side gets bored and stops, or we take it to another thread, since it's off-topic.

Everything else you wrote is a derivative of the idea that morality can't exist without absolutes. Hence it's all a waste of time talking about it - you'll never take anything I say seriously, because you don't accept that I have a moral position to write from. All the examples you draw, all they do is require me to give a moral verdict. Your argument then goes "aha! morality implies absolutes! therefore I am t3h win!!!eleventyone1!!" It'll be tediously predictable and hugely longwinded, and it still misses the central disagreement we have - which is that you believe that without god there is no morality.

All that said, I wouldn't be true to my own pedantry if I didn't take issue with this specific side point:

What I would hope from a passerby is of no relevance. A person with absolute morals acts in accordance with said absolute morals, not in accordance with my desires.

If you intervened violently then you would be betraying your own god and principles. Jesus advocated non-violence. Always. In every situation. It would certainly be a christian action to intervene if I were attacked, but it would not be a christian action to intervene violently.

—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

And there is your absolute morality. And there is you, avoiding it because it's too much like an unbreakable bind on your actions.

Fascinating Aida. Look them up (NSFW). Thank me later.

Seriously, if you wish to discuss morality and absolutism (and it's obvious from the vast reams you've written on this thread that you do), then that would be the best place to start.

Fascinating Aida. Look them up (NSFW). Thank me later.

I feel that my life has been enriched. I thank you all.

^^^^ This is probably a facetious comment.
<---- This person cares. No really, he does.