Ajidica

Nah, he'll bail before the great realization will happen. Ten bucks that we won't do anything to change his mind.

we have the perfect set up...FINISH HIM!!!

slash i actually want to see someone try to refute Russel's teapot

Wanda Sykes has the right idea!

hello, just want to say im appreciative for "defending" palestine on that one thread, the word defending sounds like the wrong word,but all the same thanks

"Micro evolution is no different then macro evolution except it makes people who don't understand science happier."

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I can't continue in that thread but I appreciate the people who are patient and determined enough to do so.

No, it's not due to anything you're doing, it's a consistent trend across all debates in all threads. So much so that I can't engage anymore - there's only so many times you can present evidence and get hypocritical, snide remarks and another goal-post shift before you start to question your sanity.

I applaud your tenacity in debating economics with people who shift goalposts at the slightest opportunity.

I hope you've been doing my bidding in my absence.

Not very much, there was a little hail, but I didn't see anything that large.

I was very stupidly outside on my balcony through most of it.

Hey dude, where in Minnesota do you live? I live in South Minneapolis.

Stop spelling Norwich's name wrong; he's annoying enough without irritating misspellings getting in the way.

An hippocracy would likely be rule by horses. You're looking for hypocrisy.

OK no problem.

I understand it doesn't apply to Sweden, but look at Reynolds v. US. The government is under no obligation to respect religous beliefs if it conflicts with a law. (Case upheld the banning of polygamy)

You always quote that. The thing is, you seem to be using that to suggest that religious freedom is irrelevant and the law can be made to restrict religious freedom? Why do you think this?

I think the whole point of Reynolds VS US was to ban polygamy because the government cannot be compelled to recognize marriage by a religious group. And obviously, if my religion mandated murder, I couldn't do it. But why do you suggest forcing religious organizations to do things like hire gay people in the organization if they don't wish too? Or are you just playing Devil's Advocate?

How is it that you're working in the Ask a Catholic and Ask an atheist threads?

Moral Objectivism has its problems too, some of them as severe as subjectivism including the question of obtaining moral truths, which likely can't be imperically tested.

There are, of course, more problems with all three of these and nothing is conclusive.
I find moral Objectivism and its implications more pleasing.

Didn't want to derail the thread.

Honestly, its because subjectivism and its implications don't sit well with me. I'm not religions and I I have no definite argument either way (though if there was a definite argument I suppose we wouldn't be having this conversation).

Cultural subjectivism has some absurdities such as the reformers argument (because the status quo defines morality reformers are always immoral for going against society and yet they later become moral after they reform it and cultural boundaries are arbitrarily decided (What scale? Entire culture? Subcultures? countercultures?) There is no complete uniformity in any scale beyond the individual.

Individual subjectivism, in practice, seems to have the same effects as nilhilism. Can punishment be justified if the person doing the action you find immoral holds the same action to be his moral duty?

That would have required reading the article.

You know, I'd have been perfectly correct if I hadn't started woffling about radiation. I never know when to shut up!

1. I never said we should bomb them, even though oftentimes it is "KILL THE INFIDEL" anyway.

2. I'll get back to you on that, but I'm not talking about America, I'm talking Middle East and North Africa.