Countries banning of kosher meats are forcing "expulsion" of Jews

[We Never Know]

We seem to agree a lot more the second time around.

I agree. I will leave it at this. Anymore..

We care more about a cow suffering than we do about aborting a baby.

We care more about dogs suffering in pens than we do about children suffering in slavery.

We care more about destroying habitats than preserving them.

We care more about having more than we need than children starving/doing without.

We care more about doing what we want now regardless of the consequences for the future.

The list goes on.

It's hard to argue for humanity when it's clear we threw humanity out the window a long time ago.

 

[charlie sc]

I agree. I will leave it at this. Anymore..

We care more about a cow suffering than we do about aborting a baby.

We care more about dogs suffering in pens than we do about children suffering in slavery.

We care more about destroying habitats than preserving them.

We care more about having more than we need than children starving/doing without.

We care more about doing what we want now regardless of the consequences for the future.

The list goes on.

It's hard to argue for humanity when it's clear we threw humanity out the window a long time ago.

Yes, I agree.

I'd like to make this point too. As a moral relativist, I'm not going to convince someone that my morality is better, because first, it's very hard to do and second, as a moral relativist, I can appreciate their morality in some way. However, in this thread, we don't get IndigoChild5559 or others, saying I don't care about the cattle's well-being. I could accept that a lot more, because this would then be their morality. Instead what we get is abysmal. It's a denial that there is actually suffering going on. So, we both share the same morality but there's some kind of cognitive dissonance going on, which is infuriating.

 

[Shad]

My reply was more directed at this whole thread and it was not out of context.Though, thank you for clearing that up.

Yah the comment chain went a little off track

 

[Shad]

This is how empathy and morality works.

If morality and empathy only apply to those things which a person likes that makes their view neither.

 

[charlie sc]

If morality and empathy only apply to those things which a person likes that makes their view is neither.

Why?

 

[Shad]

Why?

As empathy is the ability to understand another person's situation without being familiar with the person not merely those you like. Do you know what the word even means?

If you do not extend your moral code to include people that are not people you know then it isn't a moral code it just the whims of a person's mind. For example if one views theft as immoral it applies to everyone not merely those you have no interest in stealing from for X reasons like friendship, family, protection, defense, etc.

 

[charlie sc]

As empathy is the ability to understand another person's situation without being familiar with the person not merely those you like. Do you know what the word even means?

You are talking about identifying. Empathy is to feel the perceived emotions of another entity. It seems you don't know what the word means.

If you do not extend your moral code to include people that are not people you know then it isn't a moral code it just the whims of a person's mind. For example if one views theft as immoral it applies to everyone not merely those you have no interest in stealing from for X reasons like friendship, family, protection, defense, etc.

I see your confusion here. You seem to think that morality has to be absolute, like a moral law or Kant's categorical imperative. It seems like only religious people cannot even comprehend other types of morality such as objective or subjective morality. This is displayed by the vast majority of calls in the Atheist Experience and my experience. I recommend you look it up. Also, you seem to think that if it was not absolute, it would be chosen at a whim. This shows how little you know of the topic. While I won't deny morality may be chosen at a whim, the general opinion from morality outside absolutism is far more complex.

I love asking the simple question why and then I can see how misinformed people are.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's not up to me to prove the "kosher slaughter" is cruel and inhumane, that's self evident.

No, it most certainly is not.

 

[sooda]

What's the matter, cannot you even defend your own beliefs?

It's not up to me to prove the "kosher slaughter" is cruel and inhumane, that's self evident.

If a serial killer went on trial for slitting people and making them suffer a prolonged and agonizing death as they s-l-o-w-l-y bleed to death, with his victims in pain and full well knowing that they were dying for all that time, he would be branded a sick and cruel evil monster.

Have you ever seen any animals butchered?

 

[Shad]

You are talking about identifying. Empathy is to feel the perceived emotions of another entity. It seems you don't know what the word means.

Wrong. Empathy does not require identification but the ability to place yourself in a situation and understand that situation along with the emotions caused by it. I do not need to identify little Ahmed in Syria to understand what a war can do to a child.

I see your confusion here. You seem to think that morality has to be absolute, like a moral law or Kant's categorical imperative.

Wrong. I said nothing about absolute morality. I pointed out if one thinks theft is immoral they do not get to turn around stealing from people because they are not the same race, ethnic group, family, friends, social class, etc. It is about holding to one's own moral code not changing it on a whim. Ergo I think theft is immoral. I am not going to steal from you because you are having issue with this topic. My code does not change based on your acts or thoughts.

It seems like only religious people cannot even comprehend other types of morality such as objective or subjective morality. This is displayed by the vast majority of calls in the Atheist Experience and my experience. I recommend you look it up. Also, you seem to think that if it was not absolute, it would be chosen at a whim. This shows how little you know of the topic. While I won't deny morality may be chosen at a whim, the general opinion from morality outside absolutism is far more complex.

Babble based on an incorrect assumption.

I love asking the simple question why and then I can see how misinformed people are.

Too bad you didn't bother to ask questions to me instead you projected a fiction in your head. Impressive. Try again.

 

[charlie sc]

Wrong. Empathy does not require identification but the ability to place yourself in a situation and understand that situation along with the emotions caused by it. I do not need to identify little Ahmed in Syria to understand what a war can do to a child.

Huh, I was not the one conflating or interchanging the two. You decided to define empathy for me. I didn't ask. However, you definition was incorrect, as I pointed out. Humorously, you thought I didn't know the definition and pointed that out for some reason. Do I need to quote what was said or can you actually remember? Your pitiful attempt to salvage this is not going well.

Wrong. I said nothing about absolute morality.

No, you were quite clear. Your quote bellow explains it.

If you do not extend your moral code to include people that are not people you know then it isn't a moral code it just the whims of a person's mind.

Your attempt to define morality here is abysmal. You said here that it needs to be universal, not just the people you know. This is absolute morality.

I pointed out if one thinks theft is immoral they do not get to turn around stealing from people because they are not the same race, ethnic group, family, friends, social class, etc. It is about holding to one's own moral code not changing it on a whim. Ergo I think theft is immoral. I am not going to steal from you because you are having issue with this topic. My code does not change based on your acts or thoughts.

Errr, ok. Your perception of morality is extremely basic. Do you understand that other cultures and eras had different morals? For instance, during the colonial era, pirates could steal from others but not themselves. This empirically destroys your argument. Even in today, there are numerous examples of states doing something that is immoral and will do it when it suits the state.

Babble based on an incorrect assumption.

Too bad you didn't bother to ask questions to me instead you projected a fiction in your head. Impressive. Try again.

I did ask a simple question without extension. However, you seem to want to go into this aggressive approach with me from other replies and the reply following a simple question. I'm sorry if my reciprocity is not to your liking. I suggest you learn a bit more about the topic instead of showing your arrogance over your ignorance.

 

[sooda]

Huh, I was not the one conflating or interchanging the two. You decided to define empathy for me. I didn't ask. However, you definition was incorrect, as I pointed out. Humorously, you thought I didn't know the definition and pointed that out for some reason. Do I need to quote what was said or can you actually remember? Your pitiful attempt to salvage this is not going well.


No, you were quite clear. Your quote bellow explains it.


Your attempt to define morality here is abysmal. You said here that it needs to be universal, not just the people you know. This is absolute morality.


Errr, ok. Your perception of morality is extremely basic. Do you understand that other cultures and eras had different morals? For instance, during the colonial era, pirates could steal from others but not themselves. This empirically destroys your argument. Even in today, there are numerous examples of states doing something that is immoral and will do it when it suits the state.


I did ask a simple question without extension. However, you seem to want to go into this aggressive approach with me from other replies and the reply following a simple question. I'm sorry if my reciprocity is not to your liking. I suggest you learn a bit more about the topic instead of showing your arrogance over your ignorance.

Are you vegetarian?

 

[charlie sc]

Are you vegetarian?

No, I like meat.

 

[Shad]

Huh, I was not the one conflating or interchanging the two.

Wrong as you babbled about absolute morality when I didn't even mention it.

You decided to define empathy for me. I didn't ask. However, you definition was incorrect, as I pointed out.

Nope. Wrong again.

Humorously, you thought I didn't know the definition and pointed that out for some reason.

You didn't know how empathy works as per your blunder of not applying it to anyone/everyone.

Do I need to quote what was said or can you actually remember? Your pitiful attempt to salvage this is not going well.

Go for it. You are still arguing with a fiction in your head. Hilarious.

No, you were quite clear. Your quote bellow explains it.

Yes it explained what empathy and morality actually are. You seem to think whims are a moral code and empathy. Neither are.

Your attempt to define morality here is abysmal. You said here that it needs to be universal, not just the people you know. This is absolute morality.

Wrong. I never said universal. I was talking about morality a person holds thus personal. Try again son. Maybe read words I post next time.

Errr, ok. Your perception of morality is extremely basic.

Wrong as I was giving an example not defining a whole set moral codes.

Do you understand that other cultures and eras had different morals?

Irrelevant.

For instance, during the colonial era, pirates could steal from others but not themselves. This empirically destroys your argument.

No it doesn't. It establishes my point that people treat their whim as if a moral code.

Even in today, there are numerous examples of states doing something that is immoral and will do it when it suits the state.

Ergo the whims being projected as if moral when it isn't. All you have done is prove my point that whims does not equate a moral code. More so states are not a person.

I did ask a simple question without extension.

You didn't bother asking me if I was talking about absolute morality. You assumed it and babbled based on a fiction in your head.

However, you seem to want to go into this aggressive approach with me from other replies and the reply following a simple question.

You babble about a fiction in your head then project it on to me in a strawman argument and you complain not be called on it? Hilarious.

I'm sorry if my reciprocity is not to your liking.

It was your assumptions and projecting combined with your babble based on both that was the problem.

I suggest you learn a bit more about the topic instead of showing your arrogance over your ignorance.

I suggest you ask what people are talking about instead of assuming then projecting your fiction then whining about being called on it.

 

[charlie sc]

Wrong as you babbled about absolute morality when I didn't even mention it.




Nope. Wrong again.



You didn't know how empathy works as per your blunder of not applying it to anyone/everyone.



Go for it. You are still arguing with a fiction in your head. Hilarious.




Yes it explained what empathy and morality actually are. You seem to think whims are a moral code and empathy. Neither are.




Wrong. I never said universal. I was talking about morality a person holds thus personal. Try again son. Maybe read words I post next time.




Wrong as I was giving an example not defining a whole set moral codes.



Irrelevant.



No it doesn't. It establishes my point that people treat their whim as if a moral code.



Ergo the whims being projected as if moral when it isn't. All you have done is prove my point that whims does not equate a moral code. More so states are not a person.




You didn't bother asking me if I was talking about absolute morality. You assumed it and babbled based on a fiction in your head.



You babble about a fiction in your head then project it on to me in a strawman argument and you complain not be called on it? Hilarious.



It was your assumptions and projecting combined with your babble based on both that was the problem.



I suggest you ask what people are talking about instead of assuming then projecting your fiction then whining about being called on it.

Your rant is almost all assertions. You've retreated to assertions with nothing to back it up, which is equivalent to arguing with a toddler. It also seems like you can't explain yourself further. I suspect it's fear because I WILL catch you out if you make a mistake. It seems, this is what an argument with you deteriorates into. If you want to backup any assertions, I'll be here. If not, you can go back to assertions.

As a suggestion, know at least a smidgen of the topic before you get into it. Maybe then, you'll have a bit of humility on the topic.

 

[Shad]

Your rant is almost all assertions

Nope. You claimed I was talking about absolute morality. I said I wasn't. That is not an assertion. You used examples of people treating their whims via "honor among thieves" as if a moral code but it was just whims of thieves. I disagreed. Your first example treating whims as if a moral code. I pointed out it wasn't. You are arguing against points I never made. That is a fact.

Try again

. You've retreated to assertions with nothing to back it up

Nope as the evidence is in your own replies and babble about things I never said.

which is equivalent to arguing with a toddler.

Says the one that thinks I was talking about absolute morality and babbled based on that fiction. Hilarious.

It also seems like you can't explain yourself further.

I explained myself several times. Try again.

I suspect it's fear because I WILL catch you out if you make a mistake.

Were you not just babbling about me making assertions. Hilarious.

It seems, this is what an argument with you deteriorates into.

You stated babbling about fiction in your head I never said. I gave you flack for it. Now you are whining instead of acknowledging I was not talking about points your brought up.

If you want to backup any assertions, I'll be here. If not, you can go back to assertions.

Read your own posts. You claimed I was talking about absolute morality instead of asking me about it. Try again son.

As a suggestion, know at least a smidgen of the topic before you get into it. Maybe then, you'll have a bit of humility on the topic.

Hilarious. You are babbling about topics I never brought up. Try again son.

Now get back on point. Empathy is the ability to understand and feel the emotions of another person in a situation. If empathy only applies to those one knows it isn't empathy it is an impairment of empathy. Only the level of empathy changes when the person is unknown. It does not make one unemphatic completely.

Honour among thieves is not a moral code. It is professional courtesy. It is insider vs outsider. Group effort vs individual. This does not make it a moral code because you call it one.

 

[charlie sc]

Nope. You claimed I was talking about absolute morality. I said I wasn't. That is not an assertion. You used examples of people treating their whims via "honor among thieves" as if a moral code but it was just whims of thieves. I disagreed. Your first example treating whims as if a moral code. I pointed out it wasn't. You are arguing against points I never made. That is a fact.

Try again

Nope as the evidence is in your own replies and babble about things I never said.


Says the one that thinks I was talking about absolute morality and babbled based on that fiction. Hilarious.


I explained myself several times. Try again.

Were you not just babbling about me making assertions. Hilarious.

You stated babbling about fiction in your head I never said. I gave you flack for it. Now you are whining instead of acknowledging I was not talking about points your brought up.

Read your own posts. You claimed I was talking about absolute morality instead of asking me about it. Try again son.

Triggered. I'll refrain from this type of discourse, because I prefer evidence and intellectual conversation. It seems the most you can offer are continual retorts, but I'll try see what you're capable of. I explained why you think morality is absolute, but it seems like you don't realise your own stance. You seem to think that there is some kind of absolute standard or normative definition of morality The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I don't care if you think like this, but you're claiming other types codes of conduct or alternate ethical standards are not considered morality without even knowing the topic and explaining yourself succinctly.

Now get back on point. Empathy is the ability to understand and feel the emotions of another person in a situation.

No. The reason I didn't say person is because we can feel empathy for inanimate objects and even non-existent others(E.G. a story). The reason I said entity it because it needs to be some kind of agent.

If empathy only applies to those one knows it isn't empathy it is an impairment of empathy.

WHAT? Cite this somewhere. First, studies have shown and history has shown, that people can feel less empathy for other groups. I HOPE I don't need to give examples for this. Second, you seem to be implying that if empathy is not universal then it's an impairment. I need you to cite this. If not, and I suspect it is, it's just an assertion. This is one of the most pathetic arguments I've seen. Uh, here's another assertion. You're wrong lol.

Honour among thieves is not a moral code. It is professional courtesy. It is insider vs outsider. Group effort vs individual. This does not make it a moral code because you call it one.

Now who's asserting? I never made the claim that one moral code is better or non-existent, and I am a moral relativist. You cannot just say it's not without even defining morality. This is so hopeless. Look, slavery was not seen as an immoral act among the majority of the world and that's why it was a standard practice. It was the norm. I'd like to assume that most slaves did not like being slaves. However, that does not change the fact that people doing the slavery and keeping slaves did not think it was an immoral act.

Here is a passage from Platostandford describing various definitions of morality. You cannot whim this away. lol This topic has been studied in length by greater minds than you or me.

"Some psychologists, such as Haidt, take morality to include concern with, at least, all three of the triad of (1) harm, (2) purity, and (3) loyalty, and hold that different members of a society can and do take different features of morality to be most important. Most societies have moralities that are concerned with, at least, all three members of this triad. Concern with harm appears in the form of enforceable rules against killing, causing pain, mutilating, etc. But beyond a concern with avoiding and preventing such harms to members of certain groups, there may be no common content shared by all moralities in the descriptive sense. Nor may there be any common justification that those who accept morality claim for it; some may appeal to religion, others to tradition, and others to rational human nature. Beyond the concern with harm mentioned above, the only other features that all descriptive moralities have in common is that they are put forward by an individual or a group, usually a society, in which case they provide a guide for the behavior of the people in that group or society. In this descriptive sense of “morality”, morality might allow slavery or might allow people with one skin color or gender to behave in ways that those with a different skin color or gender are not allowed to behave. In this descriptive sense of “morality”, morality may not even incorporate impartiality with regard to all moral agents, and it may not be universalizable in any significant way (compare MacIntyre 1957)." The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Shad]

Triggered.

Nope.

I'll refrain from this type of discourse, because I prefer evidence and intellectual conversation.

Let me know when you start.

It seems the most you can offer are continual retorts, but I'll try see what you're capable of.

Nope. You kept babbling so I kept pointing out your babble. The rest of my points are solid. Calling something like honour among thieves a moral code does not make it one.

I explained why you think morality is absolute, but it seems like you don't realise your own stance.

Wrong. I was taking about a personal moral code that a hypothetical person could hold. I never said anything about an absolute moral code. You are still babbling based on a fiction in your head.

You seem to think that there is some kind of absolute standard or normative definition of morality The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Nope. You are still babbling about a fiction in your head. I told you I wasn't several times. You refuse to accept my answer. That makes you delusional.

I don't care if you think like this, but you're claiming other types codes of conduct or alternate ethical standards are not considered morality without even knowing the topic and explaining yourself succinctly.

Honour among thieves is not a moral code no matter how many times you claim. Other moral codes are irrelevant as I was using a hypothetical.

No. The reason I didn't say person is because we can feel empathy for inanimate objects and even non-existent others(E.G. a story). The reason I said entity it because it needs to be some kind of agent.

Wrong. Innate objects do not have emotions. Stories contain things called characters which are representative of people that have something called emotion. That is why stories work....

WHAT? Cite this somewhere.

Narcissism and anti-social personality for example. Both are in DSM which you can look up yourself.

First, studies have shown and history has shown, that people can feel less empathy for other groups.

I already pointed this. out Do not less is not none nor zero.

Second, you seem to be implying that if empathy is not universal then it's an impairment.

No. Lack of empathy is.

If not, and I suspect it is, it's just an assertion.

No its just you arguing with fiction in your head

This is one of the most pathetic arguments I've seen. Uh, here's another assertion. You're wrong lol.

Keep addressing fiction in your head. It is hilarious to see you babble about topics I never brought up, your projecting what I am talking about even when I told you I wasn't. Outright delusion. Get help.

Now who's asserting?

Wrong. I pointed out a code of conduct does not automatically make something a moral code.

I never made the claim that one moral code is better or non-existent, and I am a moral relativist.

Of course you are which is why you babble about codes of conduct as if a moral code. An person's whims are a moral code to you provided the majority supports it. Moral relativism is a flawed concept to follow. It is only good an explaining of subjective whims.

You cannot just say it's not without even defining morality.

Take you own advice. I denied what you claimed is a moral code. Now argue that it is.

This is so hopeless. Look, slavery was not seen as an immoral act among the majority of the world and that's why it was a standard practice.

That is because people are subjective thus their moral codes are farces when put to any level scrutiny like slavery.

It was the norm. I'd like to assume that most slaves did not like being slaves. However, that does not change the fact that people doing the slavery and keeping slaves did not think it was an immoral act.

So? Calling something moral does not make it moral.

 

[charlie sc]

Nope.



Let me know when you start.



Nope. You kept babbling so I kept pointing out your babble. The rest of my points are solid. Calling something like honour among thieves a moral code does not make it one.



Wrong. I was taking about a personal moral code that a hypothetical person could hold. I never said anything about an absolute moral code. You are still babbling based on a fiction in your head.




Nope. You are still babbling about a fiction in your head. I told you I wasn't several times. You refuse to accept my answer. That makes you delusional.



Honour among thieves is not a moral code no matter how many times you claim. Other moral codes are irrelevant as I was using a hypothetical.




Wrong. Innate objects do not have emotions. Stories contain things called characters which are representative of people that have something called emotion. That is why stories work....




Narcissism and anti-social personality for example. Both are in DSM which you can look up yourself.



I already pointed this. out Do not less is not none nor zero.



No. Lack of empathy is.




No its just you arguing with fiction in your head



Keep addressing fiction in your head. It is hilarious to see you babble about topics I never brought up, your projecting what I am talking about even when I told you I wasn't. Outright delusion. Get help.




Wrong. I pointed out a code of conduct does not automatically make something a moral code.



Of course you are which is why you babble about codes of conduct as if a moral code. An person's whims are a moral code to you provided the majority supports it. Moral relativism is a flawed concept to follow. It is only good an explaining of subjective whims.



Take you own advice. I denied what you claimed is a moral code. Now argue that it is.



That is because people are subjective thus their moral codes are farces when put to any level scrutiny like slavery.



So? Calling something moral does not make it moral.

I've noticed you don't have any references and you're still all assertion. I'm arguing with a man-child. Since you have nothing to backup anything you're saying, I won't take anything you say seriously but I will humour myself.

Wrong. Innate objects do not have emotions.

This is not what I said. Try to actually read what I write to you.

Stories contain things called characters which are representative of people that have something called emotion. That is why stories work....

Umm, ok lol.

Narcissism and anti-social personality for example. Both are in DSM which you can look up yourself.

Yes, I have the DSM 5 and ICD 10. These diagnoses are categorised by a lack of empathy in general, not one you're implying. You are implying that empathy is impaired when it is either consciously or unconsciously selective in some manner. Please, since you brought up the DSM, compare what you said to it. This would be a most pleasing sight, but I know you won't, because you're no substance. You're all assertions, as a child would be.

No. Lack of empathy is.

This is what you said bellow.

If empathy only applies to those one knows it isn't empathy it is an impairment of empathy.

Don't try and change your stance unless you know you faltered. I don't think you can remember or even understand what you've said. I don't know why you are here if you cannot be consistent with what you say.

Of course you are which is why you babble about codes of conduct as if a moral code. An person's whims are a moral code to you provided the majority supports it. Moral relativism is a flawed concept to follow. It is only good an explaining of subjective whims.

I don't think you understand what it even is nor do I think you have any understanding of any moral theories. For instance, one such moral theory is the social contract Hobbes - The Leviathan. I don't expect you to study this topic or know, but I do expect you to continue your assertions. Good luck with that

Take you own advice. I denied what you claimed is a moral code. Now argue that it is.

You can't even explain yourself without continual retorts and assertions. It boggles my mind how you'd expect me to try teach you anything on the topic. If you want to debate moral relativism then actually study it. However, I think the most you know of this topic is your opinion and will stay that way. Well done, my friend lol.

That is because people are subjective thus their moral codes are farces when put to any level scrutiny like slavery.

You made no sense here, as expected.

So? Calling something moral does not make it moral.

And, errr, calling something not-moral does not make it not-moral. Hence, this topic needs a definition of morality and a learned attitude. This is why I gave a reference and it discusses various definitions of morality. Platostandford is a reputable site and is one of the few sites you can actually reference in university. However, I doubt you'll read it as it may actually cause you to learn something. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

 

[Shad]

I've noticed you don't have any references and you're still all assertion. I'm arguing with a man-child. Since you have nothing to backup anything you're saying, I won't take anything you say seriously but I will humour myself.

I provided a reference not a citation. Do you know the difference?

This is not what I said. Try to actually read what I write to you.

Wrong again. You have conflated anthropomorphism based empathy with empathy for the object itself. They have feelings for the human context projected on the object not the object itself.

Yes, I have the DSM 5 and ICD 10. These diagnoses are categorised by a lack of empathy in general, not one you're implying. You are implying that empathy is impaired when it is either consciously or unconsciously selective in some manner. Please, since you brought up the DSM, compare what you said to it. This would be a most pleasing sight, but I know you won't, because you're no substance. You're all assertions, as a child would be.

https://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/ca...ica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

This is what you said bellow.

Yup.

Don't try and change your stance unless you know you faltered. I don't think you can remember or even understand what you've said. I don't know why you are here if you cannot be consistent with what you say.

What change? Empathy is universal otherwise it isn't empathy by definition. It isn't restricted to those you know which is what I said in the beginning.

I don't think you understand what it even is nor do I think you have any understanding of any moral theories.

Wrong. I do not entertain moral relativism as a source of valid moral codes. I accept it as an explanation of farces called moral codes based on whims. Not every code of conduct is automatically a moral code. That is the difference.

For instance, one such moral theory is the social contract Hobbes - The Leviathan. I don't expect you to study this topic or know, but I do expect you to continue your assertions. Good luck with that

I have read about it. What do you is your point beside grandstanding?

You can't even explain yourself without continual retorts and assertions.

You can not avoid going off-topic asserting points I never made as if I made them then whining when I tell you "no". I am ridiculing you as you refuse to take my "No" seriously instead you entertain your fantasy. You are projecting moral relativism as if the only valid form of developing moral codes rather than an explanation of farces. Just because you accept those ideas does not mean I do nor have to.

It boggles my mind how you'd expect me to try teach you anything on the topic.

I never asked you to teach me anything nor am I talking about absolute morality itself. I gave an example of a lack of empathy as empathy is universal. You want to project moral relativism as if it is the only type acceptable into a hypothetical point.

If you want to debate moral relativism then actually study it. However, I think the most you know of this topic is your opinion and will stay that way. Well done, my friend lol.

I do not want to debate it. It was never my point to begin with. I do not accept moral relativism as anything but an explanation for valid moral codes. The validity of a moral code is not dependent upon the masses nor the whims of those in power.

You made no sense here, as expected.

Read it again. Calling something a moral code does not make it a moral code by mere declaration. This is your moral relativist mind-trap which forces you to acknowledge any declaration as a moral code even if it changes on a whim or the masses decide it. I reject this completely.

And, errr, calling something not-moral does not make it not-moral.

Wrong. A code of conduct does not automatically become a moral code. Language conduct at work against swearing is not a moral code. Thieves not robbing each other is not a moral code. Again this is your mind-trap.

Hence, this topic needs a definition of morality and a learned attitude. This is why I gave a reference and it discusses various definitions of morality.

My example was of neither.

Platostandford is a reputable site and is one of the few sites you can actually reference in university. However, I doubt you'll read it as it may actually cause you to learn something. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

I've used it for years. I am rejecting your projection of moral relativism as a valid source of morality.