Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think I explained myself pretty well... and you're not listening. *Open relationships* mostly trigger a built-in bad reaction, and most of the time people act on it, just act on your fucking evolutionary urges and condemn the thing. What other empirical grounds do you need to do the honest thing here? sneak up on every bed on earth out there and show me there is no ""bad-making"" property.. ???

If you're going to build a **rational** moral system... you better build your moral judgment on what happens on most cases, not on what these shitty, devious people do, kind of relying on empirical data... I'm starting to smell dishonesty when you keep repeating a question I already answered

You haven't explained yourself at all.  In an open relationship that isn't causing either partner or anyone else any harm, what is wrong?  

I actually didn't acknowledge that.. Read again. I said you can't possibly know an open relatonship isn't harmful. You know, however, that it's mostly harmful.

Let me break it up for you:

In most cases : open relationships are a big no.

In very rare cases : open relationships appear not to be harmful.

Any sane person can now draw the conclusion... as to whether we should welcome open relationships with open arms ....

I can obviously know alot of things you don't.  Absent any harm, what makes an open relationship bad?

Maybe that he can't get his partner to agree to one?

Boru