Replies

My position is far more logical and consistent than yours. You can't seem to discern a difference between moral absolutes and your personal strictures.

We always like our own arguments better than others until we are convinced we are wrong. There are plenty on this thread who think I have done a good job. That doesn't make me right, but it should cause you to take another look.

I try very hard not to have any personal strictures that are not moral absolutes. I don't have any reason for them. Why should I categorically avoid something enjoyable that is not wrong? Likewise, I try very hard to differentiate between things that are bad for me but not wrong in general. Having an alcoholic mother and maternal grandfather suggests to me that it is not worthwhile to tempt fate and drink. But I don't make teetotaling a moral absolute because there is no evidence that it is one.

Get with the program. This is a debate. I clearly pointed out that there was a lot of human history wherein the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not universally recognized and declared it to come specifically from Judeo-Christian faith. In my opinion, that is a huge stumbling block to your argument of "obvious differences." Either counter my position with an argument of your own or explain how it is not a stumbling block to your argument.

Complaining that I am condescending because you appear to be having a bad morning and started name-calling is not debate.

As for Remedy, I disagree with you on his motives, but that is between you and him. That you degenerate into calling him names is between you and me.

Shalom.

There are plenty on this thread who think I have done a good job. That doesn't make me right, but it should cause you to take another look.

I certainly don't expect the majority of FR to agree with me on this topic. Nonetheless, it causes me no equivocation. I've made very reasoned arguments in favor of my postition. You're free to ignore them if you like, as you have. You're free to pretend that I've not made reasoned arguments, but you're only fooling yourself.

You disagree with me, I understand, but for you to say I've not made a reasonable argument is just as subjective and baseless as your understanding of laws and human rights.

I try very hard not to have any personal strictures that are not moral absolutes.

I think the dischordance in our discussion is from having two very different definitions of "moral absolute", which begs the question, how absolute are they? Do you not ask yourself that?

there was a lot of human history wherein the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not universally recognized

I don't believe human rights were inchoate at the founding of this nation. Our founding documents may have been among the first to statutorily recognize them, but human rights weren't birthed with those documents. Likewise, I don't believe human rights exist only in nations where the government recognizes them, nor are they absent from nations where the government ignores human rights.