>The lovable idiot! Have you recovered from last night's
>almighty cock-up?
>
>>I know you trying to have a discussion with Inverse, but
>your
>>use of language is fucking terrible.
>
>So YOU are giving english lessons now?
>
>
>And perhaps you dont see
>>the reason in engaging in this kind of thing. You are
>>attempting to change and enlarge peoples world view.
>
>This is not my forum.
>
>
>>>Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be
>>appealing
>>>to an objective truth? If there is a 'universal truth' it
>>>simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. Where
>then
>>>does it come from, and how can we begin understand it?
>(Bear
>>>in mind our 'subject, verb, object' language).
>>
>
>>You cannot appeal to Objective truth. An Objective truth
>>should appeal to reasonable people because it is a fact.
>>Universal Law(never heard of any sych phrase as Universal
>>truth) is essentially Karma...what you do comes back to you.
>>How you understand it is by living and learning from the
>>lessons life deals you.
>
>
>>
>
>This is a trivial semantic point. I thought you hated those?!
>
>In any case the objective truth is the 'authority'. An
>argument can appeal to that authority.
>
>In a court of law, we simultaneously appeal on the law and to
>the law. There is no greater authority than the law itself.
>
>There are no facts. (Including this!)
>
>
>
>
>>>It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of
>>other
>>>HUMANS. Call it emotional but when an individual is
>>kidnapped,
>>>people come together in order to help, as does the
>>>institution. So it is meaningful.
>>
>>
>>not to this human. Your hypothetical situations do not
>appeal
>>to my emotions. Using reason I can see that this is merely a
>>discussion, so why should my emotions become involved?
>>
>>
>
>InVerse initially came up with this hypothetical so take your
>whining to him. Are you getting mixed up again?
>
>BTW emotion and rationale is often inextricably linked. It's
>difficult to figure out where one ends and the other begins.
>For example, you wrote that you want to attack my point of
>view from every conceivable angle; because ultimately you want
>to attack me. That's emotional.
>
>
>>>>So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?
>>
>>
>>morally wrong. But how do you define those morales?
>emotions?
>>desires? that was what led to the hypothetical baby being
>>raped in the first place.
>>
>>But as a defence lawyer you would be laughed out of court!
>>The
>>>legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough
>>>shit! Majority view wins the day (or parliament view; but
>>>that's a different argument).
>>
>>And that is the democratic system you support? mob rule?
>
>
>What is the alternative? We must have faith in ourselves, not
>God.
>
>
>>>>And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might
>>>makes >right. If enough people decide that black people are
>>>3/5 human and >should be herded and worked like animals...
>>>then it IS SO.
>>>
>>>>All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of
>>your
>>>>worldview.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately yes, but that's when you either subscribe to
>>it
>>>or become an activist (slavery, that is)...
>>>
>>>
>>>Remember that your objective Christianity justified
>slavery.
>>>
>>>Explain that one to me. Then answer the homosexuality
>>>question. I am logically ready!
>>
>>Logically ready? aye o.k. captain
>>
>>And you may be logically ready, but you are also morally
>>abhorent.
>>
>
>
>WTF?! What am I promoting that is morally abhorrent?
>
>Can you explain the Christianity/slavery anomaly?


yep

you

are

a

cocksucker

hah

hah

...