(January 17, 2013 at 1:38 am)Rhythm Wrote: You don't have to call an immoral act moral, this is what I've been trying to explain to you. By calling something immoral you have identified it as a moral act...... You don't have to call it a moral act, use some other phrase to convey the concept (good luck, and I'd be interested to see what you come up with in that regard). You will still be leveraging the same concept under a different name - and that by which we call a rose...my love.
You really think that your level of competence in english is some place to toss in a freethinker jab? If we decided to be "freethinkers" (at least whatever you seem to think that means) with regards to language we would be incapable of communicating with each other. Here again you're engaging in the same nonsense that led to all this in the first place. You have nothing to say - but you seem to be convinced that you do.
