(June 13, 2023 at 2:01 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:(June 13, 2023 at 10:01 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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?I have no control if one gets offended or not. I'm just communicating your personal offense was not the goal of the question.
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?
That's unusual, most people I know have a great deal of control over whether someone finds what they say offensive. Perhaps you are deficient in some way. You certainly seem deficient in understanding what people post. But maybe it's me. To me it's crystal clear that Nudger was stating his morality is objective, and therefore asking him how his morality would change if his country's did is a non sequitur. But perhaps I missed the post where Nudger said his morality would change depending on what's popular.
Do you know what you call someone who's not a moral realativist? A moral objectivist. And by the by, I am also a moral objectivist and never said anything that could reasonably be construed as indicating I'm not. You just assumed it.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.