AGAIN, are you willing to withdraw what you wrote on the other post (re: the tsunami/Thai sex slavery)?

>Because you "really" believe that right is "really" right and
>wrong is "really" wrong. You don't merely think they are
>just matters of taste, else you would not hold others against
>them.

Lol, in future, read the full post before yoe respond to it! I wrote:

In other words, man made God - in part - to police each individual's struggle to conform with what SOCIETY PRESCRIBES AS RIGHT AND WRONG.

You would simply say "well I don't prostitute children,
>but to each his own".

Have you heard of the rule of law?

You, and every other human, believes in
>a real right and wrong. If you did not, if we did not,
>boards like this would be meaningless. The very concept of
>activisim would be meaningless, as anyone who was trying to
>get THEIR OWN WAY would be an activist in the EXACT same sense
>that anyone on this board is.

As above.

We both know that is not the
>case. Why? Because some people fight for what is "really"
>right. Objectivel right. Not subjectively. Not whims. Not
>preferences. Facts. Moral facts. The only place a moral
>law, which is objective to human minds can come from is from a
>MIND which is objective to human minds.


Any activist that claims to fight 'objectively' fails to see that the subjectivity/objectivity distinction is a misnomer. It is also likey that he is uttlerly self-conceited. How can each individual's conception of right and wrong be subjective except his. Ah, but this is the Christian activist who does the work of God. The problem lies herein...


NO human mind can
>create an objective moral law/rule/fact.


...is the Bible (upon which your very original post relied) not written by man?


>Of course not. We're free not to believe in God. But we're
>not free to invert the moral order, only violate it.


Eh?!


>>reason (JUDGMENT)
>>noun
>>the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments,
>>especially based on practical facts. (Cambridge Online
>>Dictionary)
>
>There's a pressuposition in there. Do you see it?


What? The presupposition that the subject has a healthy mind to think and make judgment or that said judgment will be based on facts?


>>Because in the final analysis, reason is a process, not a
>>presupposition.
>
>You've just restated exactly what I said in response to your
>"reason is my pressuposition" statement.

It is inconceivable that I am agreeing with you? Are we not here to learn and exchange ideas? Or are you here to impose (*cough* objectively)?

Ultimately it is the process that disproves the presupposition/hypothesis. Remember that it was you that posted this forum. It was my job to disprove your hypothesis through the process of reason. I achieved this by establishing that your hypothesis contradicts the SCIENTIFIC LAW of causality. The only presupposition I needed was that I believed yours was incorrect.

Do you see it?