It is wrong.
Telling you that you haven't established any such thing. Is addressing your argument.
And the following fully and succinctly addressed it.
"All there is are actions, and interpretations of those actions. Those interpretations are all subjective."
But since you don't seem to understand that lets address each statement to further show how wrong your statements are.
Morality is a matter of subjective opinion.
Such as what you believe is good/bad/evil. Belief make it subjective.
Man's nature is to kill that which he chooses for whatever sufficient reason he chooses.
An insult still is enough to kill for in places around the globe.
Others, in their subjective views, believed that to be wrong, and in there framework (which is subjective) it was objectively wrong. But onlyy within the subjective framework.
Outside of it, it is nothing more than an action.
Thus nothing. You haven't proved any such thing.
And what you think you proved doesn't hold for the other side of the coin.
Last edited by Excon; 04-24-14 at 02:27 PM.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
LOL...and I have continually shown how everything in that claim, all the numbered items, were opinion, subjective. The fact that you keep saying you demonstrated anything wit that list as an answer is a waste of time, as it's the reference point I countered.
And how did you demonstrate that morals proceed from human nature? That is a very generic statement...please be more specific.
But it’s definitely a subjective thing.
You keep saying “sufficient cause”
All “sufficient cause” means is essentially “enough to make it happen”.
The intentional killings perpetrated during the holocaust occurred due to the desire of that nation’s leader to kill large groups of people he felt were genetically inferior in a quick and efficient manner.
They had “sufficient cause” to happen.
Now if you want to move the goal posts to “sufficient just cause” or “sufficient moral cause” you can…but then you’re just proving it’s a subjective thing, as “justice” and “morality” are in and of themselves subjective things.
The holocaust happened because there was sufficient cause….the desire of Hitler for it to happen was more than sufficient enough to cause the holocaust to occur.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
2. Demonstrate this.
3. Demonstrate this.
4. The burden is on the person killing to show sufficient reason.
5. Thank you for actually attempting an argument. As to your argument, that they were worthless Jews, I would counter that the burden of proof remains on you to show why Jews are of less value than other people.
The law says that 10 yrs in prison is 'justice' for some murders, however the family of the persons killed often do not feel that that is justice.
Some people would say that after accidentally running over someone in a crosswalk, and then the driver hits a telephone pole and dies...that that is justice. Some people would not.