(June 13, 2023 at 10:01 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:I have no control if one gets offended or not. I'm just communicating your personal offense was not the goal of the question.(June 13, 2023 at 9:41 am)R-Farmer Wrote: It seems you have veered off topic. The question I asked was based on your comment that you wanted/preferred flexible morality over god's ridged never changing righteousness.
My question is If society makes it legal for MAPs to have sex with children would you be ok with this? because like it or not know it or not this movement is gaining traction. I'm just asking do you have a line where you say no to the continuous evolution of morality?
Again no judgement or offense intended. Nor am I looking to challenge your answer. Just wanted to see how far this line of thought goes.
Nudger has stated that his positon is one of objective morality. How did you arrive at the notion that he would bow to the winds of moral fashion. If I were him I would be offended at the insuation as well. What on earth makes you think this is his 'line of thought' in the first place? Are you so convinced that he's a moral relativist that you litertally can't hear him when he tells you he's not?
That said I thought I was abundantly clear with the delivery of my question as to why I asked how far would nudger's acceptance of evolving morality would go. Because I wanted to see if there was a line. (Seemingly so) then the next question would be at what point is said line drawn? I ask this to then ask What makes this the end of your moral relativism any different than the line God drew in the sand? Why is His line bad.. but your's/nudger's ok?
