Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

Why do you think it is the basis?  

1.) Because it is, and transparently so.  It's not as if we haven't seen page after page of examples.  

Even if harm is a common result, it doesn't mean it is the basis for it.  As we have seen, "because it causes harm" doesn't always mean immoral.

2.) Still fucking up, huh?   Where's the harm, amiright?  

No, I am asking you to show me where the harm is, that you say is the basis for it's immorality.  And again, I'm not trying to justify it morally.... you are misunderstanding my intentions. 

3.) intention is simply to avoid what you have no reason to deny.  It's pretty silly.  What would god think about all this blatant dishonesty, eh?  

 Perhaps, you could say this type of wrong is harmful to yourself. I could even agree, that in some way, all immorality harms ourselves.  

4.) Even the immorality that we don't actualize, like "lusting in our hearts"?  Even the immorality that we conceal, say..murdering your brother and hiding his body?  Do you think that maybe immorality harms other as well?  How about society?  How about god?  How about the relationship between god, oneself, others, and society?  OFC you fucking do.......if you didn't, you could neither argue or believe that god was just.  

 However, I could just bring up again, things that are harmful, that are amoral. I think that you need to think through this some more, and explain, how you are making this relationship to make it a basis for, and not a result of.

5.) Could you...then why don't you?  So far we've heard about you "harming" your phone...that's been your sole, brilliant, amoral objection.  I also think it's amoral, since it causes harm in no meaningful or objective way....but go ahead, bullshit us some more for absolutely no reason, repeatedly lying like a common sinner.

I numbered your points for easier reference.

1. )  I don't think it is quite so transparent (as a basis that is).  In doing some research, it appears the idea wasn't expressed until the middle 18th century, and didn't really become popular until the later 20th century.  While others have classified this as a mostly American ideology.  And your examples don't really show anything, other than some connection.   I think that connection is that harm tends to follow immoral behavior.  You don't answer the questions about it being the basis, but claim it is axiomatic.  But you also don't address the reasons, for why harm alone isn't the basis, and seem to agree with most of my examples.  I think this is because you are smuggling in moral principles, to add to your axiom of harm (which, kinda defeats it).

2.)  Is this sarcasm to avoid discussion?  It doesn't seem to address what I said.

3.) No dishonesty on my part (and I think it shows the weakness of your position to resort to such tactics).   But what if his intention is to avoid emotional harm to his wife (as was stated).  You seem to be avoiding this!

4.) I would suggest you focus on your own arguments.  And yes, all sin grieves God (which I suppose would be harm).  But you do not (at least from your current worldview) have the luxury of appealing to that.  And even showing that all immorality involves harm (which I don't necessarily agree or think is a stretch to make the claim work), doesn't go to show that it alone  is the basis.  

5.)  If it helps, the phone thing, was an example, that I made up.  Perhaps you can use that now, to divert the topic to me as well.  However I have known people who have reported having done such, and meaningful and objective harm was done to the phone.  It's just not meaningful, in a moral sense.   "Because it harms" doesn't mean immoral here.  Again, you seem to be smuggling in moral principles, to make your harm axiom work. 

And again, I'm just examining what you are claiming; to evaluate it.  I'm not making any other assumptions or adding anything to it based on what I know is moral, or claiming that these things are necessarily moral or not.  So far as the moral assessments go, we are not very far apart at all.  So you can stop portraying that I am.  Also axiomatic doesn't mean unquestionable.   It was once though axiomatic, that the sun revolved around the earth.  But it would be foolish if people had ignored the defeaters for this, and said "look it's obvious the sun revolves around the earth"