I do love arguing with people, especially those who argue against LGBT equallity. Yet, anytime I seem to make enough progress, the bastards I'm arguing with suddenly block me. The worst part is, they usually do so after sending me a post, and then after I spend who knows how long creating a response, I find out they've blocked me. No chance to reply, explain myself, or post a counter arguement. It's total bullcrap. Why are they so afraid of truth. This latest guy for example, accused me of saying morality shallow, but that's not what I meant at all, but does he want to hear it? No. Well, since I'm ranting to no one in particular here, I'll post what I was going to say right here...partially because I don't want this to go to waste and partially in the hope that hisarcher19
will see it and reconsider his decision to block me.
I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying moral codes are shallow per se, but the people who create them might be. Now, many like to claim that morals are absolute, and there are a few things I'd like to believe are absolute, but the rest is largely subjective. Now please hear me out before you block me or something.
Heh...so much for THAT.
Morality is something that each person decides on for themselves. We can try and claim we all have the same morals, but the truth is we don't. No one has the exact same concepts of right and wrong, fact and fiction. Even Christians, who follow the bible will have different concepts of morality. There are even factions of Christians who would condemn your own asexuality as eschewing your moral duty to god to get married and procreate. They would condemn you as selfish, self-centered, and immoral. Based on some parts of the bible, they'd even have a case. You could also point out that some parts of the bible support indefinite abstinence when one can in fact resist "natural urges". Christians have an entire book to dictate to them how one should conduct themselves in a moral manner and you STILL can't all agree on how to act. So if all these different moral codes can be developed from a single book, then how can we explain why they're different? Simple: everyone develops their own morals. You might be inspired by the bible, but so are 90% of the people in prison, yet clearly you have a different code from them, correct? So, if each moral code is different, even from the same source of inspiration, then one can ultimately conclude that a moral code is as shallow as the person who creates it, correct?
Now sure we may have some differences, but I'm sure we can agree on a few moral absolutes. Unjustified murder is bad, forcing oneself on another person's body to any degree is wrong, stealing in a non-emergency situation, no talking in the theater once a movie starts, for example.