RE: Will Jesus return on a white horse?
January 17, 2013 at 1:29 am
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2013 at 1:34 am by catfish.)
(January 17, 2013 at 1:25 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why would I change my wording? It's common use, well understood, mechanically accurate, and very easy to explain (should anyone, gasp, have any trouble).
What happened here, is that you thought you had something to say when you didn't.
No, what has happened here is that you have had your thought processes dicatated to you. I will NOT call an immoral act moral while you seem to have no problem being one of the sheeple...
"freethinker" - one of the biggest lies sold to fucktards everywhere...
.
(January 17, 2013 at 1:23 am)Stimbo Wrote:(January 17, 2013 at 1:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: You could, without assigning any given thing a positive moral value, call it a "moral act", and then, once it's been established or agreed upon (ideally) that morality applies to this act....you could go on the make a case for a negative moral value judgement, in essence call the act "immoral". You would not be contradicting yourself, no dishonesty (intellectual or otherwise) or delusion would be required......
Just as you could say someone has incredible luck, without specifying whether that's "good" luck or "bad" luck. As we're constantly being reminded, context is key.
Context... lol
Question: would you call something you thought to be "immoral" a "moral act" or an "act of morality"???
.
